Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages Act

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Labour what amending legislation it is proposed to introduce in connection with the Catering Wages Act.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): None, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what representations he has had, either from industry or the trade unions on this subject?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not do so without notice.

Lower Wage Scales

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Labour if he can give a rough ap-

proximation of the number of men receiving less than £5 per week exclusive of overtime payments, and including overtime, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Would not the Minister agree that the time has come to recognise that there are many people getting less than £5 per week and that useful attention might be given to the consideration of a national minimum wage which would ensure a modicum—

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question, which merely asks for a rough approximation.

Merthyr Tydfil

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of unemployed persons in the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil, giving, separately, the figures for men, women, juveniles and those signing the disabled persons register, for the months of January, 1948, July, 1948, and December, 1948; and what percentage of the insurable population do these unemployed figures represent.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those figures during the last 12 or 18 months show a reduction or an increase? If the latter is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his fellow Ministers to the frightfully serious unemployment position in Merthyr Tydfil?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I can only answer the first supplementary question. The figures for January, 1948, were higher than they were at December, 1948. There was a drop in the total by the end of the year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As this tragic figure has occurred in time of full employment, will it make the right hon. Gentleman and others more charitable to those who were responsible for our affairs in South Wales before the war?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as my recollection goes, these figures are only a tithe of what they were before the war.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows for employment exchanges in the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil, (a) the total numbers of

—
Number of persons registered as unemployed
Registered disabled persons unemployed


Men 18 and over
Women 18 and over
Young Persons under 18
Total
Suitable for ordinary employment (included in the total of registered unemployed
Suitable for sheltered employment only (not included in total of registered unemployed)


Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


January,1948
1,988
486
72
2,546
893
4
897
81
3
84


July, 1948
1,850
397
42
2,289
878
8
886
70
2
72


December, 1948
1,966
327
58
2,351
866
11
877
62
1
63


The total numbers of registered unemployed persons at the three dates represent about 10 percent. of the number of insurance cards issued to employees at employment exchanges in Merthyr Tydfll.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour how many able-bodied unemployed persons have left Merthyr Tydfil since July, 1945, to take up employment in other parts of the country under the temporary transfer scheme.

Mr. Isaacs: One hundred and six men and 25 women. Of these all but 19 men and six women have now returned to the home area.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the Minister whether really serious attention is being paid to the temporary transfer scheme, in view of the fact that it is known locally that several times the number of persons that he has mentioned this afternoon have been compelled to leave their constituency because of absence of employment in their own locality; and will he stress on the employment exchange that this temporary transfer scheme must cover any person compelled to leave?

Mr. Isaacs: The temporary transfer scheme has no element of compulsion in it. It is entirely optional. It is working satisfactorily as is evidenced by the fact that 26 men and four women who have returned home took up local employment found for them under the conditions under which they registered.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend know that unemployed persons, and men in particular, are compelled to leave that district every week? I should like to have some record that his Department has the number who are compelled to leave.

persons registered as unemployed in January, July and December, 1948, and (b) the numbers of registered disabled persons unemployed in the same months.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will see if it is possible to find out which men are compelled, and by whom they are compelled.

Trade Union Discussions, Bulwell

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the acute industrial tension at the firm of Richard Sankey and Co., Ltd., Bulwell, Nottingham, in the refusal by the firm to meet the trade union representatives of 90 per cent. of the employees; and what steps he is taking in order to avert an industrial dispute.

Mr. Isaacs: My Department is in touch with the parties concerned and discussions are proceeding.

Night-Baking (Discussions)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Labour what further information he has about the state of the discussions between the representatives of the employers' and workers' organisation in the baking industry on the abolition of night baking.

Mr. Isaacs: A joint meeting under the auspices of my Department is taking place next month.

Building Workers

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Labour the trades of the 41,000 building workers unemployed on 6th December, 1948; what were the reasons for such


unemployment; and what steps are proposed for the employment of this valuable productive labour.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply to the first part of the Question includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The amount, namely 3 per cent., is not excessive for this time of year and most of it is accounted for by men changing jobs. Sixty per cent. of the men unemployed on a Monday are in work again before the end of the week.

Following is the statement:

The following table gives an occupational analysis of the number of men and boys registered as unemployed in Great Britain at 6th December, 1948, whose last employment was in the building and civil engineering contracting industries:


Occupation
Number registered as unemployed at 6th December, 1948


General Foreman (Building Trades)
62


Carpenter, Joiner
1,180


Bricklayer
1,131


Mason (not monumental)
59


Monumental Mason, Stone Carver
9


Slater, Tiler (Roof)
175


Plasterer
323


Floor and Patent Roofing Layer, Tiler (Wall and Floor)
57


Painter, Decorator, Paperhanger
2,949


Plumber, Gas Filler, etc.
520


Glazier
52


Labourers to above Occupations
1,501


Navvy, Mains Layer's etc.
434


Constructional Iron and Steel Work Fitter and Erector
94


Builder's Labourer (not otherwise shown)
2,303


Navvy's, Mains Layer's. etc.



Labourer
303


Constructional Iron and Steel Work Erector's Labourer
15


General Labourer, Heavy Work
9,246


General Labourer, Light Work
12,671


All other Occupations
7,874


Total
40,958

Disabled Persons, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what steps he has taken during the past six months to ensure the employment of disabled persons in Cardiff;
(2) the number of disabled persons in Cardiff who have been registered as unemployed for over 12 months; and what special steps he is taking in these cases.

Mr. Isaacs: One hundred and eighty-three disabled persons have been unemployed in Cardiff for over twelve months. Recent developments include the opening of an Industrial Rehabilitation Unit in Cardiff last September for those in need of a course of Industrial Rehabilitation to fit them for employment. In addition, the Cardiff Disablement Advisory Committee is reviewing, at my request, the prospects of finding further openings locally. I have also appointed a Resettlement Committee for South Wales and Monmouthshire to co-ordinate action over a wider area. All these are special steps taken over and above the normal employment exchange services for the disabled.

Mr. Thomas: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for the action that has been taken, may I ask him how many men have been trained at this industrial rehabilitation centre established at Cardiff last September?

Mr. Isaacs: I ought to have notice of that question. The information I have in mind is that up to the present 83 people from Cardiff have entered this centre.

Remploy Factory, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to establish a Remploy factory at Cardiff, in view of the number of disabled persons registered at the Cardiff Employment Exchange.

Mr. Isaacs: There is a Remploy factory on the Treforest Trading Estate which provides for severely disabled persons at Cardiff. In addition, a special factory at Cardiff for the tuberculous is planned.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Remploy factory at Treforest is at least eight miles from the city and that he is catering for the severely disabled; therefore, is he aware that there is considerable difficulty for these people to get to Treforest, and will he consider the establishment of a Remploy factory in the city where 564 disabled persons are registered as unemployed?

Mr. Isaacs: Not all of them will be entitled to this sheltered employment. It is true that the factory is for the severely disabled, but in some cases the disability is not such as prevents them getting about. It might be a disability of the hands or something like that, and not the legs. In addition the Corporation pay the fares for these men who have to travel from Cardiff to Treforest. I say without hesitation that we shall not be happy until we can provide greater facilities near the centre of the city.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that those in charge of this Remploy factory are using the resources placed at their disposal with the utmost energy and to the best advantage in placing seriously disabled persons in employment?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question. I had better answer it by saying "Yes we are completely satisfied."

The following table shows the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of employment exchanges in Lowestoft, Beccles and Southwold at l0th January, 1949, the latest date for which figures are available, distinguishing the principal industries:


Industry
Males
Females
Total


Lowestoft:






Fishing
…
436
15
451


Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing
…
34
—
34


Preserving of Fruits and Vegetables
…
19
2
21


Other Food Industries
…
70
99
169


Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
…
22
—
22


Building
…
105
—
105


Wholesale Distribution of Food and Drink
…
97
—
97


National Government Service
…
18
2
20


Local Government Service
…
25
3
28


Catering, Hotels, etc.
…
39
41
80


All other Industries and Services
…
269
54
323


Total
…
1,134
216
1,350


Beccles:






Agriculture and Horticulture
…
12
—
12


Fishing
…
49
—
49


Building
…
16
—
16


All other Industries and Services
…
41
11
52


Total
…
118
11
129


Southwold:






Fishing
…
17
—
17


All other Industries and Services
…
24
8
32


Total
…
41
8
49

Release and Resettlement (Booklet)

Mr. Granvill Sharp: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue

Mr. Mainwaring: How little it is that satisfies the Ministry.

Mr. Isaacs: I would hesitate to say how much it would take to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Suffolk

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women were registered as unemployed on 31st January, 1949, in Lowestoft, Beccles and Southwold, respectively; and in which industries the incidence is greatest.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Evans: Can the right hon. Gentle-say how the transfer system is working in that area?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that I shall have to ask for notice of that question.

Following is the reply:

a revised edition of "Release and Resettlement" explaining the position and rights of serving members of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: The booklet "Release and Resettlement" was issued shortly before the end of the European war to explain to members of the Forces the provisions of the age-and-service release scheme and the arrangements for resettlement in civil life. As the age-and-service scheme is now coming to an end, it is not proposed to re-issue the booklet. Information on release and resettlement matters is contained in a booklet "For Your Guidance" which is issued to members of the Forces at the time of release. This booklet has recently been revised, and I will send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sharp: Will my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements whereby this booklet can be made available for members of the Forces before they are released and so save hon. Members of this House the trouble of having to answer questions which should have been answered earlier?

Mr. Isaacs: Arrangements have been made. The Service education officers are fully briefed upon this matter and they have supplies of this resettlement literature. A monthly resettlement bulletin is published jointly by the three Service Departments.

Road Workers

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour how many road workers were unemployed in January, 1948, or at the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that the information is not available.

NATIONAL SERVICE (STUDENTS)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is giving consideration to the position of National Service men who curtailed their post-graduate courses to commence service in the spring of 1947 and who will lose one year if they are not permitted to resume in the spring of 1949; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I cannot give any general undertaking to arrange for early release in cases of this kind but I am prepared to consider individual cases brought to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Writs (Registration)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the present period of arrears of registration in the Sasines Office; and what steps have been taken to deal with this problem;
(2) whether, in view of the recommendations contained in paragraphs 26 and 30 of the First Report of the Committee on Land Registration in Scotland, Command Paper 7451, arrangements will be made for part-time legal assistance to be utilised for the purpose of bringing the registers of the Sasines Office up to date.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The period of arrear in the registration of writs in the Sasines Office is now over six months, as compared with a normal period of 50 days before the war. Arrangements are already in operation employing part-time legal assistance on three evenings a week, and steps are being taken for the appointment of additional regular staff.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has got sufficient assistance, because I understand that there are a number of young solicitors available to do this work in the evenings?

Mr. Woodburn: Already there are about 60 young solicitors working at this, but it is not expected that we shall be able to overtake the arrears for about 12 months.

Mr. Scollan: Could not my right hon. Friend devise some means of abolishing this casual labour in the legal profession?

House Valuations, Edinburgh

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that considerable hardship is being caused to a large number of owner-occupiers of houses in the Comely Bank and Learmonth districts of Edinburgh due to the recent considerable increase in the valuation of their houses made by the city assessor; and whether, having regard to the importance of encouraging people to become owner-occupiers, he will introduce legislation to ensure that purchasers of new houses are


not suddenly confronted a few years later with large increases in the valuation of their property.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that the valuation of a number of owner-occupied houses in Edinburgh has recently been increased by the city assessor and confirmed by the Lands Valuation Appeal Court on appeal. The law provides that the valuation of such houses is to be the rent at which one year with another they might be reasonably expected to let and I see no reason for its amendment.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the desirability of encouraging the ownership of houses, would the Secretary of State consider amending the Lands Valuation Act of 1854 to ensure that

The following table gives particulars of the catches landed by Scottish and English boats operating in East Anglia in 1938 and 1948:


—
1938
1948


Scottish Boats
English Boats
Total
Scottish Boats
English Boats
Total


Aggregate Quantity (cwts.)
…
891,798
941,653
1,833,451
952,064
713,992
1,666,056


Aggregate Value (£)
…
239,337
309,346
548,683
946,157
710,508
1,656,665


Information as to the amounts accruing to crews and owners is not available.

Duke Street Prison, Glasgow

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the advisability of having Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, demolished, in view of the fact that for many years now only a small part of the prison has been occupied, that the work of demolition, if speedily undertaken, would give work to a reasonable number of workers presently unemployed and signing at the employment exchanges in Glasgow, and that the site so cleared could be used for more essential community requirements.

Mr. Woodburn: To replace Duke Street Prison by a modern prison for women, while desirable, would need the diversion of building resources from more immediately urgent work. This is not possible meantime.

Mr. Carmichael: Has the Minister any idea as to the type of prison that would

there is more equitable basis for assessing the values of owner-occupied houses?

Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.

Herring Fishing (Statistics)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the values of the total catches during the East Anglian herring fishing seasons in 1938 and 1948, respectively; what was the volume and what amounts accrued to crews and owners respectively in each year, differentiating between Scottish and English vessels.

Mr. Woodburn: As the answer contains figures I shall, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information:

take away the building trade to the extent he indicates?

Mr. Woodburn: I have quite a number of ideas but they would come more appropriately on the consideration of a criminal justice Measure.

Forestry Commission (Appointments)

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how Scottish Forestry Commissioners are appointed and on whose nomination; and what were the qualifications of the Rev. J. E. Hamilton and Major John Stirling, of Fairburn, who were recently appointed to the Commission.

Mr. Woodburn: Forestry Commissioners are appointed under Statute by Royal Warrant. Both the Rev. J. E. Hamilton and Major John Stirling were appointed by reason of their keen interest in forestry and their record of public work in Scotland.

Major McCallum: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain anxiety amongst those interested in forestry that although the qualifications of the first named of these two gentlemen may be very good for other reasons he has no experience whatever of forestry, whereas the second is well known as a highly qualified expert in forestry?

Mr. Woodburn: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends are under a misunderstanding. The Forestry Commission only requires to have four people who are expert in forestry. The Commission is an administrative body which requires people versed in the law and other forms of public administration. The gentleman named is versed in the law as well as in public administration.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, worthy as this man is, there would be somebody more useful to the Forestry Commission by reason of his background, because it is well known that this man has no back-ground in forestry?

Mr. Woodburn: I believe that he is a most outstanding man in administration and experience.

Forestry Students (Employment)

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there is considerable anxiety regarding future employment on the part of forestry students who have been accepted by Scottish universities for training; and if he will consult with the department concerned, with a view to assuring that there will be vacancies under post-war forestry schemes, either with the Forestry Commission in Great Britain or with the Colonial Forestry Services overseas, to absorb those students who qualify for employment in those services.

Mr. Woodburn: Both the Forestry Commission and the Colonial Office encourage suitable University graduates to find employment in the available posts in their service.

Major McCallum: Can my right hon. Friend say how it was that last year no vacancy was made available for these trained students: and is it true

that there was an inter-Departmental slipup whereby these vacancies for forestry service both at home and abroad were not advertised?

Mr. Woodburn: I have no information about that, and I should be very glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would suggest that, in any public service, we must examine every post to see whether it is really necessary.

Aged and Infirm Persons (Care)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that under the Scottish Poor Law Acts local authorities were obliged to provide hospital care for aged people but since the repeal of these Acts this service is being neglected and in consequence great suffering is caused to old people living alone and in need of attention, particularly where there are no relatives; and if he will give this matter his attention and issue the necessary instructions to those possessing this authority to exercise it in the interest of the aged infirm.

Mr. Woodburn: The facilities available for the hospital care of aged people have not decreased, but an increasing demand has caused some delay in the admission of old people not in urgent need of active medical treatment. The Regional Hospital Boards are reviewing the situation to see what additional facilities can be made available.

Mr. Carmichael: When my right hon. Friend indicates that the facilities are still there, may I ask him what body is responsible for doing this job, because we have been trying to find out in Glasgow and cannot do so? Is he aware that there are hundreds of aged people in Glasgow with nobody to care for them at all, and that this is a shocking state of affairs under a National Health Service?

Mr. Woodburn: I think that my hon. Friend is making a wrong reflection on the National Health Service. The facilities are no less now than before the Service came into operation, but the Regional Boards are doing their best to increase them. I understand that the trouble has arisen because a large number of old people, to whom my hon. Friend refers and who were very much in need, would not seek this refuge be


cause of the stigma which attached to the Poor Law, but that they are now willing to take advantage of it because of the dignity attaching to the National Health Service.

Mr. Carmichael: May I ask my right hon. Friend where does he get the idea that there has been a change in the attitude of mind? Is he not aware that, for a good number of years, these aged people were cared for in hospitals, not workhouses, and that now there is evidence abroad that many of our voluntary hospitals are deliberately avoiding taking these people, who are being neglected by the community as a whole?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is not the Minister aware that there are fewer hospital beds for these people available now than on 5th July?

Mr. Woodburn: I am not aware of that. I do not think anybody has destroyed hospital beds.

Child Care

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children being cared for by the local authorities in Scotland under the Children Act, 1948; the number of children in family homes; the number of children in large institutions and homes; and if he is satisfied that the local authorities are doing all that is possible to reduce and replace institutional care in favour of home life care.

Mr. Woodburn: The number of children in the care of local authorities in Scotland at 15th November last was 8,496. Of these, 5,623 were boarded out with foster parents; 1,112 were in children's homes provided by local authorities, and 1,480 were in voluntary homes. The remaining 281 were on that date in child guidance centres, hospitals, convalescent homes or National Assistance Act premises. As regards the last part of the Question, the possibility of extending still further the use of boarding out is at present being considered by the Scottish Advisory Council on child care, from whom I expect an early report.

Housing

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will

now state the results of his visit to Ayrshire to inquire into housing progress in the county and the burghs; and what steps he is taking to accelerate the rate of house building in Ayrshire.

Mr. Woodburn: My recent visits to housing authorities gave me a most useful opportunity of discussing their problems on the spot. I have authorised the immediate starting of 558 houses previously approved in Ayr County and Burghs, in addition to the 3,132 houses already under construction. I have also authorised the authorities to invite tenders for 910 new houses including 430 Blackburn houses. If the rate of progress justifies it, I hope to be able to authorise further houses during the year.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say the reason for the backward state of the housing programme in Ayrshire? Is it because there is a Socialist majority on the County Council?

PENSIONS TRIBUNAL (APPEALS)

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, in appeals to the Pensions Tribunal, periods of 16 months have elapsed from the date the notice of appeal is entered until the hearing; and whether he will take steps to see that hearings are expedited and that there is no injustice by reason of delay of this kind.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): I would refer the hon. Member to the full information about this matter which I gave to the House on the Second and Third Reading of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill and to similar information which was given by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in Debates on the Bill in another place. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that an appellant does not suffer financially by reason of this delay in the event of his appeal succeeding.

Mr. Weitzman: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, although the appellant may not suffer financially in the end, he suffers from a serious injustice in having to wait as long as 16 months before he can get his case heard by the tribunal?

Mr. Marquand: He does not always suffer an injustice if the delay is caused by a search to find information which may help him, and, in many cases, that is just what it does. The number of new cases coming forward now is a great deal less than the number of cases being dealt with currently by the tribunals, so that the arrears are being overtaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Courts Martial (Recommendations)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to put into effect all the recommendations of the Army and Air Force Courts Martial Committee.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): As stated in the prefatory note to the Committee's Report, some of their recommendations have been put into effect, and some others are in process of adoption; His Majesty's Government have not yet reached a decision upon other recommendations.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has yet put into effect those recommendations which do not require legislation but are designed to cut down the delay before the trial?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir; some of these have already been put into effect.

Nursing Officers

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for War how long the pay and conditions of service of the Q.A.I.M.N.S. have been under review; and when he expects to be able to make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: The scales of pay of nursing officers in the Army Nursing Service have been reviewed periodically in normal course, and there have, in fact, been some increases on review within the past 12 months. The pay and conditions of service for the future are under consideration. It is a matter of some complexity, but I will do my best to expedite a statement.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when this consideration first began?

Mr. Shinwell: A few months ago.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Could he say when general demobilisation took place?

Mr. Shinwell: That is quite another question.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the number of nursing officers of the Q.A.I.M.N.S. required to meet commitments on 1st January, 1949; and what was the number actually available on that date.

Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the first part of the Question is 1,892, and to the second 726.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: In view of the very serious shortage disclosed is not this due to the extraordinary delay which has taken place in settling the terms and conditions of service?

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, I think not. There is considerable difficulty in securing the services of nurses even for civil hospitals.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Exactly. Is that not borne out by my question that, if these terms and conditions had been settled before general mobilisation took place, there would not have been this shortage?

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to make the best possible use of the available strength of nursing officers of the Q.A.I.M.N.S.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to make the best possible use of the available strength of nursing officers, convalescent wards in all large Army hospitals have been placed in the charge of non-commissioned officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps; this enables nursing officers to be concentrated on the care of acute cases. Other steps taken include the closing of maternity wards in some family hospitals, responsibility for the confinements being handed over to the civilian medical authorities.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is it not highly undesirable that the nursing services available to the Forces and their families should be restricted in this way, and, furthermore, is not the Minister aware that, under the present arrangements, with the present shortage, a great many Army


nurses are having to work unconscionably long hours, that they cannot get leave, or may have their leave cut short, and cannot always get their off-duty time?

Mr. Shinwell: Naturally, when there is a scarcity of nursing personnel, there must be some difficulty, but we are doing our best to overcome the difficulty. The fact is that the supply is not appropriate to our needs.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that there is some dissatisfaction among nursing officers that they are being differently treated from members of the A.T.S. and are not allowed to be released on the age and length of service basis?

Mr. Shinwell: That is one of the points we are now considering.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Minister aware that there are now more trained nurses than ever before in the history of the land?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will provide the evidence, I shall be very glad to avail myself of it.

Conviction and Sentence, Germany

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the case of 2629262 Guardsman J. J. Alcott, and 19, of the Grenadier Guards, tried by General Court Martial at Bielefeld, British Army of Occupation on the Rhine, in January, 1949, on a charge of murder and sentenced to death, no intimation was sent to his next-of-kin of the charge; that his family learned of the charge and conviction from a private source on 7th February; and whether, as the next-of-kin may desire to provide such representation as they think fit at the trial, he will see that information of charges of a serious kind is communicated to the next-of-kin as soon as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot accept the statement that Mrs. Alcott received the information on 7th February about her son from private sources. In fact the charge, conviction and sentence were communicated to her by the counsel who defended her son, in accordance with arrangements made by the Honorary

Chaplain to His Majesty's Forces in Brussels at the request of the Commandant of the Unit at which Guardsman Alcott is being detained pending confirmation or otherwise of the proceedings of trial. I do not agree that a soldier's next-of-kin should automatically be informed when the soldier is to be brought to trial on a serious charge or charges. There is no reason why a soldier should not inform his next-of-kin himself should he wish them to be informed. Guardsman Alcott was granted legal aid and at his request the trial was postponed from 14th December, 1948, until 5th January, 1949, to allow the counsel of his own choice to appear.

Mr. Weitzman: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that apart from offending against every decent principle of humanity by withholding this information, the opportunity of giving proper representation to this soldier was denied? I know that able assistance was given by the Director of the Army Legal Service, but, quite obviously, relatives of a soldier might desire to have representation made by counsel.

Mr. Speaker: That is a statement not a question. The hon. Member cannot make long statements.

Mr. Weitzman: What I desire to know is whether the Minister will see that the soldier has the opportunity, through his next-of-kin being informed at the earliest possible moment, of having the best possible representation?

Mr. Shinwell: In this case, as in all others, legal representation was assured, and no difficulty arises on that account. Guardsman Alcott was provided with adequate legal representation. As regards withholding information from relatives, it is obvious that it would be quite impossible in all cases to inform relatives about allegations made against a particular soldier for the simple reason that the soldier might be proved to be innocent, in which case there is no reason why relatives should be informed.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it plain whether there are any obstacles whatever put in the way of the soldier himself communicating with his next-of-kin if he wishes to do so?

Mr. Shinwell: In this particular instance I have made personal inquiries. The soldier was at liberty to communicate with his next-of-kin. It may well be that because of the serious charge alleged against him the soldier did not wish to inform his relatives.

Mr. Weitzman: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of a soldier of 19 years of age a communication ought to be sent to his next-of-kin at the earliest possible moment because, although the soldier may not desire to give the information, it may be in his interest if his next-of-kin were informed so that they could provide adequate representation?

Mr. Shinwell: I think it would be greatly improper, and not necessarily helpful to the soldier, if we were to consult the next-of-kin without consulting the soldier himself. Obviously, if the soldier consented, he would wish to inform his next-of-kin himself.

Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend make sure that every facility is now given to the mother to see her son.

Mr. Shinwell: There is another Question on the Paper about that.

Recruits (Civil Convictions)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War whether recruits presenting themselves for attestation in the Regular Army are still required to state whether they have been convicted by the civil power; and whether the prewar practice of discharging those who are found to have been so convicted still continues.

Mr. Shinwell: Before they may be attested, all recruits are required to state whether they have been convicted by the civil power. If the answer is "Yes," particulars must be given so that a check can be made. If a man has been convicted of a serious offence he is not accepted. A man does not subsequently become liable for discharge unless it transpires that, on enlistment, he made a false statement regarding a civil conviction, in which case he may be court-martialled and possibly discharged.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the prospect that another Question on the Paper may not be reached, will my right hon. Friend say whether his attention has been drawn

to an article written by a senior officer and published in a London evening newspaper on 4th February in which it was stated that in the prewar Regular Army there were soldiers with bad prison and Borstal records; and, further, will he make clear whether or not this article was submitted to him for his approval prior to publication; and, in any case, is not the statement incorrect?

Mr. Shinwell: The officer in question was retired from the Army on 3rd February, and, therefore, I can incur no responsibility on his account.

INTERMEDIARIES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement with regard to the terms of reference and membership of the committee to be set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Edwin Herbert to inquire into the activities of contact men.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The Committee to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers will have the following terms of reference:
To inquire how far persons are making a business of acting as specialists in the submission of applications for licences or permits, or otherwise as intermediaries between Government Departments and the public; and to report whether the activities of such persons are liable to give rise to abuses, and to make recommendations. The inquiry is not intended to cover the activities on behalf of their clients by members of recognised professions.
As I have already announced, the Chairman of the Committee will be Sir Edwin Herbert. The other members will be Mr. E. A. Carpenter, O.B.E., Mr. Dingle Foot, Sir George Gater, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., D.S.O., J.P., and Mr. C. J. Geddes. The Secretary of the Committee will be Mr. R. J. P. Hewison, of the Cabinet Office, Great George Street, S.W.1, to whom any persons wishing to give evidence before the Committee should write.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he is satisfied that the fullest possible information will be made available to the Committee by the relevant Government Departments?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, everything will be done to give them the fullest information.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN, 1951

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Lord President of the Council what scale of fees or other remuneration is to be paid to architects, exhibition designers and the like for the 1951 Exhibition in London and in the provinces.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There are a number of special factors which affect the fees to be paid for this work and these will be discussed with the appropriate professional bodies.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an assurance that every possible consideration will be given to a major share of the work going to British designers rather than to foreigners, as I understand there are many who would be glad of such an assurance?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly ask that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's representation shall be taken into full account.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE

Major Lloyd: asked the Lord President of the Council what are the duties and powers of the Chairman of the Governors and of the Director of the British Film Institute, respectively.

Mr. H. Morrison: The British Film Institute is a body constituted under the Companies Act, 1948, as a company limited by guarantee. The powers and duties of the Governors (of whom the Chairman is one) and of the Director are set out in the Articles of Association, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of people connected with this institute and its work who are concerned with the fact that the newly-appointed Chairman is a director of the "Daily Mirror" and "Sunday Pictorial," and will he say what qualification that gives him for the particular job? Is he also aware that there

is deep concern over the fact that one of his first actions was to get rid of the existing director who happens to differ from him politically?

Mr. Morrison: That question seems to me to be full of bias from beginning to end. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly entitled to like or dislike certain newspapers. I selected Mr. King because he was a competent business man. In my judgment, this organisation needed a competent business man in the chair, and I thought that it would be a good thing, although the previous chairman was an admirable chairman. There is nothing like having a change when changes happen. [HON. MEMBERS; "Oh."] That is what the country thought in 1945. With regard to the resignation of the Director, that was a decision reached by the governors as a whole.

PROPAGANDA FILM (COST)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Lord President of the Council how much the film entitled "What a Life" cost; what revenue has been obtained from it; and whether he has any evidence that its declared purpose of persuading people that things are not as bad as they seem has succeeded.

Mr. H. Morrison: £6,260, plus £2,512 for distribution. It is one of 12 films a year supplied and shown free under a long-standing agreement with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, so the question of revenue does not arise. This is a light little film about two men who, in the end, take a cheerful view of life's troubles, and there is no reason for thinking it unsuccessful.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Lord President seen this film? Does he know that it shows two men so depressed by the conditions of life in England today that they try to drown themselves, but make a mess of it? Does he really think that that is the sort of film on which £9,000 of the taxpayers' money should be spent without any possibility of a return?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the hon. Member has given a very short and incomplete critical review of the film because he forgot to add that, having


attempted to drown themselves—fortunately they did not succeed—they were so happy at having been left alive that they went about cheering up everybody.

Mrs. Mann: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any difficulty whatever in persuading, nay in convincing, the people of this country, or does he know of anyone on these benches who has any difficulty in convincing the people, that things are not as bad as they were?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these two men, having failed to drown themselves at Southend owing to lack of water, finished up in a free public house where they were well treated, and that it was not a State public house?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is not the declared purpose of this film a good deal more patriotic than the object of Conservative propaganda, which is to make things appear worse?

Mr. Drayson: Are not the two men in the film redundant temporary civil servants who sought suicide instead of returning to productive employment?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Anglo-Swiss Currency Talks

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress and results have been achieved in the Anglo-Swiss currency negotiations.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): As was announced in the Press on 4th February, we have not so far been able to reach agreement. The difficulty mainly centres on the level of Swiss less essential exports to the United Kingdom, which includes tourism. I cannot foretell whether the difference between us will be resolved.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that these arrangements come into force on 1st May and that many ordinary people are trying now to make arrangements for holidays, as they have to do when they are employed in business?

Mr. Jay: The public can assume that tourist facilities generally after 1st May will at least not be less than in the past year.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rivetters and labourers in the port of Glasgow are kicking up a tremendous row and asking when he is going to make these financial arrangements for them to take their holidays in Switzerland?

Petrol Tax (Farmers)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to avoiding penalising, by way of tax, farmers who have petrol-burning tractors, he will consider removing the tax from agricultural petrol, or, alternatively, giving a rebate of 6d. a gallon on petrol used for agricultural purposes.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister realise that agricultural petrol ought not to have been made liable to this tax? Why penalise this most efficient tractor when more food is so urgently needed? We must make sure that this tax is taken off agricultural petrol without any further delay, Budget or no Budget. That answer has been made before.

Local Government Manpower Committee

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms of reference and who are the chairman and members of the Manpower in Local Government Committee which has just been set up; whether it is intended to take advice from any professional organisations such as the British Institute of Management or the Institute of Public Administration, which might be able to assist in making the report more comprehensive; and whether the final report will be published.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) on Tuesday, 8th February.

Mr. Cooper: Is it intended that this should be purely an inter-Departmental


Committee and, if so, does not that mean that civil servants will be sitting as judge and jury in their own case and that the committee is unlikely, therefore, to recommend any extensive cuts in manpower at present being sought by the Departments?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend will read the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington he will find in it the answer to the questions he has now put.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the opinion of a great many people this Committee may well be fruitful in putting forward useful suggestions for economy without any loss of efficiency and is it not very desirable that its report should be made as widely known as possible?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not that kind of Committee. It is a Committee composed of Departmental and other experts who are going into this matter, and at this juncture, at any rate, it is not expected that a report will be necessary.

Mr. Cooper: Will the widest possible scope be given for evidence to be heard from local government officials and local government councillors?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think my hon. Friend can take it that evidence of all kinds that may be desirable will be taken.

Mr. Stanley: If this strange Committee is not going to report, what is it going to do—not, I hope, follow the example of "What a Life"?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The question I was asked was whether it was going to make a final report, that is, a published report, and the answer is that that is not contemplated at the moment.

Mr. Stanley: Is it going to make a report? If it is, cannot that report be a published report, if the right hon. Gentleman so desires?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps will be taken to publish the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the distribution of functions between central and local government authorities and to ensure economy in the use of manpower.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on 8th February.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not very desirable that the proceedings of this Committee should be treated seriously, and will my right hon. Friend reconsider getting them to report in such a way that the fullest use can be made of the recommendations they may put forward?

Purchase Tax

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that unless the cost of living is definitely prevented from rising any further there will be serious industrial unrest in the country; and if he will therefore consider reducing and where possible abolishing the Purchase Tax on articles essential to home life and personal needs, thus relieving the tension that is gradually increasing.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. McKay: Will the Minister realise that this is a serious question? Does he know that there is a large percentage of our population whom he cannot relieve by manipulating the Income Tax because they are not paying any? Does he realise that many of these people are still getting very low wages; that the cost of living is continuing to rise beyond wages; and that, therefore, there is a great necessity for right hon. Gentlemen really to put their minds to this problem?

Mr. David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has paid tribute to the restraint shown by both sides of industry and that the cost of living has risen mainly as a result of the Government's own failure to keep down the cost of the nationalised services? Will he bear that fact in mind?

Mrs. Leah Manning: Did my hon. Friend listen to the wandering microphone on Saturday night and, if so, did he hear six people in a row, asked whether they were interested in the de-rationing of clothes, reply, "No," because they could not afford to buy the clothes? As that is very good evidence, will he bring this matter forcibly to the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend before the Budget, and not afterwards?

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give advance notice of not less than three months when it is intended to remove or reduce Purchase Tax on any particular article, in order to mitigate the loss which falls on retail traders.

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that is precisely what I am asking him to do in this instance, because if trade is left in ignorance it causes unemployment, and causes the loss to fall on the retailers instead of on the consumers as was intended?

Mr. Jay: I can assure the House that we have been giving a lot of thought to this question for a very long time.

Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend mention any trade that has been brought to a standstill?

Mr. Marlowe: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there were effects in the radio and the bicycle trades in that time?

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many schemes have been submitted to him for the purpose of preventing loss falling upon retail traders when Purchase Tax is reduced or removed; what' has been their general nature; and what are the reasons which have influenced him in deciding that they would be impossible to administer.

Mr. Jay: As the answer is a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of trades are being brought to a standstill through this lack of certainty between Christmas and Budget time, which is now causing considerable unemployment, and that unless the matter is dealt with very urgently, it will lead to very serious consequences?

Mr. Stanley: Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman took this matter seriously? Is it not a fact that it has been raised on each of the last three Budgets? Is it not time, instead of always trying to foist responsibility on the trade

to produce a scheme, for the people upon whom responsibility rests, that is, the Treasury, now to produce a scheme themselves?

Mr. Jay: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we have taken this subject very seriously for a very long time. Both during the Finance Bill discussions last Summer and since, every possible effort has been made by the Departments concerned and, I believe, by industry to find a practicable solution. So far none of us has succeeded.

Mr. John Lewis: Can my hon. Friend give the House any idea of the nature of these schemes which have been put up and why they are unsatisfactory? Will he bear in mind at the moment that some of the most reputable retail houses are now asking for goods to be supplied "on sale or return" terms?

Mr. Piratin: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that question?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one small retail firm alone lost £10,000 on records stock because of one sentence in last years' Budget speech? Is that not an intolerable loss that no small firm can possibly bear?

Sir William Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman name a single trade association which has not protested against the uncertainties arising out of Purchase Tax? Can he name one in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Marlowe: In view of the failure of the Treasury to devise a scheme to remedy this admitted injustice, will the hon. Gentleman make way for somebody who can remedy it?

Following is the answer:

A number of different suggestions have been made, but they are all variants of two main ideas. One was that each retailer concerned would take stock of his goods after a tax reduction, and put in a detailed claim showing the quantity of each line of goods on hand, and the difference in tax involved.

Examination of this proposal with the trade representatives showed that many of the smaller retailers would find the greatest difficulty in preparing such a


claim, and that, in any case, it would be quite impossible subsequently to check what stock the retailers might claim to have had at the time of the tax reduction. The retailers' representatives recognised, therefore, that this was impracticable, and put forward an alternative based on "Stockturn" periods.

Under this scheme the average time which retailers in each trade take to turn over their stock (called the stockturn period for that trade) was to be ascertained. The retailer's stock at the time of the tax reduction would then be deemed to equal the quantity of each class of goods concerned which he had purchased during the stockturn period appropriate to each. It was argued that the quantities so purchased could be checked officially from the suppliers' books, and that effective control could thus be exercised over the retailers' claims. This scheme, however, never took practical shape, for no means of ascertaining the true average of stockturn period for each of the many classes of goods concerned could be found. Apart from that, and a number of other practical difficulties in the way of working the scheme, it was obvious that it would operate most unfairly as between one retailer and another. While theoretically it might be fair on the average, the retailer whose stock was small in relation to his purchases would get too much relief, while the retailer whose stock was large in relation to his purchases would get too little.

Both schemes, moreover, assumed that on a tax reduction retailers have at once to mark down the price of all their goods concerned by the difference in tax. Experience shows that this assumption is justified only with a few classes of goods, mostly the more expensive fixed-price goods in good supply, and that over much the greater part of the Purchase Tax field a tax reduction does not by itself involve an immediate markdown in retail prices equal to the amount of the tax reduction.

Airways Officials, Tripolitania (Taxation)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what liability to tax his regulations impose upon the allowances of British Overseas

Airways Corporation officials in Tripolitania.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Liability depends upon the nature of the allowance and the circumstances of the official concerned. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of any case he has in mind I will communicate with him.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an impression among British troops in Tripolitania that British Overseas Airways officials are much more favoured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer than they are themselves? Will he look into this to see if there is not an unfair tax levied on British troops' allowances vis-à-vis British Overseas Airways officials.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have already invited the hon. and gallant Member to let me have any particulars in the case he has in mind, and I will most certainly look into it.

Trade Union (Political Levy)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a voting paper, a copy of which has been sent him, issued on 21st January by the Typographical Association, requiring members who have omitted to contract out of the political levy, to vote in order of preference for four nominated persons in the election of a parliamentary candidate and imposing fines for failure to vote; and whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit such additional impositions upon trade unionists.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. The fine is provided for in the rules of the union, which the members can amend if they wish. I am not prepared to introduce legislation prohibiting such rules.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over half the members of this union have contracted out of the political levy? Is that any reason why the remainder should be required to vote for a panel of Socialists, or be fined for not doing so?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered. The supplementary question which the hon. Baronet has put is exactly the same


question in other words as the Question he had on the Order Paper, and I have answered that.

Medical Treatment Abroad (Foreign Exchange)

Mr. Donner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that several thousand persons suffering from tuberculosis cannot receive adequate treatment or hope to be cured in hospitals in this country owing to the shortage of beds and/or nurses; and whether he will supply foreign exchange on request to such persons in order to enable them to be cured in Switzerland.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am aware and am sorry that there are at present long waiting lists of patients for sanatorium treatment. I regret, however, that foreign exchange cannot be granted automatically on request to enable persons suffering from tuberculosis to go to Switzerland. The Exchange Control Medical Advisory Committee examines all applications for exchange on health grounds and advises whether the medical evidence justifies the provision of currency for treatment abroad.

Mr. Donner: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify a state of affairs in which holidaymakers can go to Switzerland but people who suffer from tuberculosis, and who cannot be cured in this country, are denied foreign exchange to go to Switzerland?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That, of course, is not the true state of affairs.

Mr. Messer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of tubercular patients suitable for treatment in Switzerland does not come to several thousands?

Mr. Donner: In what particular was my supplementary question not true? Is it not true that people can go to Switzerland for holidays?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Currency is provided for people suffering from tuberculosis for whom the doctors prescribe treatment in Switzerland, and if the medical panel agrees with the evidence of the doctors.

Mr. Assheton: Is the panel allowed to take into account the fact that attention cannot be given to the patients necessarily in this country?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It can take everything into account.

Remittances (China)

Major Lloyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new regulations regarding the transmission of money to China will be imposed consequent upon the disruption of the Nationalist Government.

Mr. Jay: As the transmission of money to China already requires permission of the Treasury I do not consider that the imposition of any new regulations is necessary.

Major Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people connected with the Aid to China Movement, including Lady Cripps, are deeply concerned about this matter? Will he see to it that their anxieties are removed, because they do not wish—and many others do not wish—the money subscribed to be given to the Communists instead of to the Aid to China Movement?

Mr. Jay: China is outside the sterling area, and, therefore, the exchange control applies, and the position is exactly the same as it is in any other country outside the sterling area.

Major Lloyd: Is there to be no guarantee that this money will not be given to the Communists?

Mr. Jay: That general issue was discussed by the House a month or two ago. It does not arise particularly in regard to China.

Post-War Credits

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will relax the regulations governing the payment of Income Tax post-war credits in cases such as that of the late Mr. W. G. Harwood, of Plymouth, who died intestate, but about whose intention that the credits should pass to his mother there is no doubt, and about whose estate the hon. Member for Sutton, Plymouth, has recently been in correspondence with the Treasury.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no power to authorise payment of a post-war credit where it is not due under the relevant statutory provisions.

Mrs. Middleton: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the sympathetic and understanding letter I received from him concerning this case, may I ask him whether he will take early steps to see that cases such as this, deserving compassionate treatment, are treated in a special class and are given all the consideration they deserve?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what my hon. Friend has just said.

Income Tax (Temporary Premises)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider his decision not to make Income Tax allowances for the depreciation of such temporary shops and other business premises as were erected to take the place of premises destroyed in the war and are subject to demolition without compensation at three months' notice, because they are situated in reconstruction areas.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered this matter again, but he is afraid he cannot propose any change in the law.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this imposes a grave injustice on people whose business premises were bombed during the war and who, in order to re-establish their businesses, have had to put up temporary places in reconstruction areas? Will he not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the matter again?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was discussed at some length during the Debates on the Finance Bill last year, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be raised again this year.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is not the answer of the right hon. Gentleman very near to disclosing what is to be in the next Budget?

Capital Re-Issues

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances re-issues of capital require the

permission of the Capital Issues Committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a transaction involving the conversion and sale of existing shares of a previously inactive company, it would not require Treasury consent unless it fell within the terms of the Control of Borrowing Order, 1947, or of Regulation 6 of the Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1939, as modified by the Capital Issues Exemptions Order, 1947.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that in the example that, possibly, my right hon. Friend has in mind, the case of the Auroch Investment Company Limited, it is possible for a company to raise £500,000 capital on what looks like bonus terms without paying bonus tax, and without securing the consent of the Capital Issues Committee? Is that possible at the moment?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is possible.

Swedish Timber Houses (Import Duty)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is, to the latest available date, the number of timber houses imported from Sweden on which import duty has been paid, and what is the total sum collected; and if, in view of the high cost of housing, he will consider refunding the sums paid in duty by the local authorities.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The number of timber houses imported from Sweden between May, 1945, and December, 1948, was 5,001, and the duty paid was £433,997. I am not prepared to authorise the refund of the duty legally chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1932, whether the houses were imported for local authorities or other persons.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a heavy tax on housing, and will he pass on the suggestion to his right hon. Friend to reconsider this in his Budget statement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that my hon. Friend forgets that there was a special subsidy on these houses.

CIVIL SERVICE (EFFICIENCY STANDARDS)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the information regarding methods of increasing business efficiency, now being prepared by the information section of the Economic Planning Board, is being distributed to the Organisation and Methods division of the Treasury and all Government Departments with a view to stimulating higher standards of efficiency in the Civil Service and bringing about a considerable reduction in its size.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Treasury Organisation and Methods Division, and other Departments will, as hitherto, remain in contact with business and industrial problems in order to apply within the Government machine the benefits of other experience.

Mr. Cooper: If I am able to bring to my right hon. Friend's notice examples of flagrant waste of manpower or inefficiency in the Departments, would he have those cases looked into with a view, possibly, to setting up a Select Committee to investigate the affairs of the Civil Service?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are always willing to look at anything that may 'be brought to our attention by my hon. Friend.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide in certain cases for the determination by a Tribunal of standard rents for the purposes of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under Subsection (3) of Section one of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(VARIATION OF STANDARD RENTS FIXED BY REFERENCE TO NEW LETTINGS.)

3.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if the Amendments in line 1, page 8, to leave out from "the," to "or," in line 9, and insert "first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine," and to leave out from "the," to "or," in line 9, and insert "appointed day," were considered together.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: They are of course, Mr. Bowles, diametrically opposed, but we shall be perfectly prepared to give our argument on them although we shall, of course, divide separately on them.

Mr. Piratin: Further to your proposition, Mr. Bowles, may I confirm what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, that these two Amendments are directly opposed? Would you, therefore, be prepared to take them separately?

The Deputy-Chairman: The question will be put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," and those hon. Members who suggest that they should not stand part of the Clause will vote against their standing part.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out from "the," to "or," in line 9, and to insert:
first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
This Amendment is intended to bring within rent control houses let since 1939 instead of those which have been let since 14th August, 1945. During the Second Reading Debate, as hon. Members will recall, there was a certain amount of criticism on all sides of the House concerning the inadequacy of the Bill. There was general agreement on this side that, in so far as Clause 1 deals with the control of rents since 1945, it was a good Clause, but many of us on this side of the House felt that it left the gap of the war years, and it is this gap that I am now asking the Committee to close by accepting the Amendment.
On Second Reading the Minister, in answer to an interjection of mine, said that there were not many lettings of this kind during the war, that is to say, new lettings between 1939 and 1945, but later he added:
I am not quite hidebound about that at all,
and he said:
I am prepared to have a look at it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January 1949; Vol. 460, c. 577.]
It is in the light of his statement that I am moving the Amendment.
In the first place, as to the point made by the Minister that there were not many houses let during the six years of war, I would cross swords with him on the basis of my own experience, which is confined to London, and on the basis of information which I have had from a number of hon. Members representing other parts of the country. The reasons are clear and we can construe the facts accordingly. As a result of the war, hundreds of thousands of families left London and other big cities and went to live in provincial areas—safe areas as they were then regarded. While they were there, houses were often let in sections and sublet in all kinds of ways which had not been the case previously. All this was done during the war, and there was no control upon the landlords or the main tenants of those houses concerning the rents. The 1939 Rent Act controlled only the rent as at 1939 and did not apply to new houses built or let subsequently to 1939.
During the latter years of the war—and I speak with personal knowledge of what happened in London—when the London folk began to come back, they found, among other things, that there were 200,000 houses fewer because of the blitz and many thousands of houses uninhabitable for the same reason. They found themselves in the position of begging landlords and tenants to allow them to use premises which had not been used before 1939 and which, therefore, constituted new hereditaments. Many of those places were entirely new since 1939. I believe, from what the Minister said two weeks ago, that in actual fact not many new houses were built. He may have been correct so far as new houses were concerned, but he was not correct with regard to new lettings. In fact, thousands of new lettings were created during the war years. In many of these cases, with the situation prevailing on the basis of the law of supply and demand, the landlords and main tenants demanded very high and exorbitant rents. They were entitled to take them by law; and there is a strong case on those grounds alone.
There is a further aspect of the matter of which the Minister is well aware. If the Amendment is accepted, it will simplify the Rent Acts by at least going a step further than the Bill does. As I mentioned on Second Reading, there are already two controlled types of houses under the Rent Act, 1939—the old—control, as they are known, and the new control. The Bill now puts in a third category, namely, those controlled from August, 1945, onwards. There is a fourth category of non-controlled houses which are within the rateable value of controlled houses—those which were built and let from 1939 to 1945.
This is the gap, and I would point out that it is a very dangerous gap. It is a menace, and it works out in this way: When a tenant, after this Bill is passed into law, applies to a tribunal to determine the rent of a house, the tenant will have the responsibility of proving that the house was let for the first time since 1945. If the tenant cannot prove that, which is generally the case, and the landlord wants to say, whether it be true or otherwise, that it was let for the first time during 1939 to 1945, he does not come within the new Act nor does he fall


within the old Act. Obviously, this is a temptation which very few landlords will be able to resist.
Therefore, this gap, apart from being an encumbrance to the whole of the Rent Acts, is likewise a danger which I am quite certain the Minister does not intend and ought to avoid. I think that the only way to avoid it is by the simple alteration of the date as I have suggested in the Amendment. In his Second Reading speech the Minister could not give any good reason why the date should be 14th August, 1945. Indeed, we did not even have any reason why it had to be exactly 14th August; it might have been any other day—a few days later or a few days earlier; it might have been May when hostilities in Europe ceased. The best thing that the Minister can do is to accept this Amendment and close the gap, so that all houses of the rateable value concerned come under control, whether within the old Acts or this new one, and in that way provide equality for all the tenants affected.

Mr. Lipson: It is not often that I find myself able to support any Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), but I do feel that I can on this occasion. I am comforted in doing that when I remember the saying of the Latin author, that fas est et ab hoste doceri; and though I do not regard the hon. Member as an enemy, I am still willing to learn from him when I think that he is saying something which seems to me not only good sound sense but also elementary justice. I believe that the real dividing line on this issue of rental is not the date in the Bill but the date of the outbreak of war. If, as I believe, the Minister regards the principle behind this Bill as a good one, then surely that principle ought to be applied to those tenants who were compelled, very often against their will, to rent new houses because of the outbreak of hostilities. For that reason, I think that the date 1st September, 1939, is a better one than that of August, 1945.
It may be argued, either that a great many people would be affected by the change of date, or that a very few would be affected. If there are a great many, it can be further argued that it would mean a lot of work for the tribunal. Well, if a great many people are suffering injustice because they had to rent houses

at abnormally high rents in September, 1939, I do not think that the Minister would be prepared to say that an attempt should not be made in this Bill to deal with that injustice. As he knows from the working of the previous Act, it is not necessary to take every case, or even the majority of cases, to the tribunals. The mere fact that a tenant is given this protection affords him something with which to negotiate with his landlord for a revision of the rent. Also, the landlord knows that if he goes to the tribunal he may get a decision less satisfactory to himself than he could get by agreement with the tenant. If, on the other hand, there are only a few people involved, it is only right that they should receive justice, and not very much additional burden would be placed upon the tribunals.
What I am afraid is likely to happen is that if the date 14th August, 1945, remains there will be two classes of tenants and two classes of landlords, and they will not be treated equally. Those who were fortunate enough not to have to rent new houses before August, 1945, will have protection; but those who, for the same reason, were compelled to rent houses, at what they considered unreasonable rents, between September, 1939, and August, 1945, will not be protected. There will also be a feeling of injustice between landlords because one has to go before the tribunal and the other does not.
3.45 p.m.
I believe that if this Amendment were accepted it would add to the value of the Bill; it would make it a better Bill, and would give much more satisfaction. I represent an area where many houses were rented for the first time in September, 1939, because Cheltenham was in those days considered to be a comparatively safe area. I have had letters from tenants who for all those years have had to pay what they considered unreasonable rents. They should have the opportunity of going before the tribunal and having the matter decided. They have been looking forward to this Bill. They have had to pay what they consider an unreasonable rent for long enough—longer than those it is at present proposed to help; if anything, they have a stronger claim for protection than those it is at the moment proposed to protect.
I ask the Minister to regard this Amendment sympathetically and to add to the value of his Bill by accepting this proposed change.

Mr. Skinnard: I find myself in some difficulty in considering the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and supported by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). In circumstances of this kind we naturally tend to think of cases within our own knowledge; indeed, the hon. Member for Mile End said that he was doing so. The logic of his argument is fairly clear, and I should be tempted to agree that this Amendment should be accepted but for certain very grave cases of hardship which would follow its acceptance.
In an area such as that I have the honour to represent most of the houses were held on mortgage, and a great many of the mortgage holders had to leave London at the beginning of the war, either on being called up for service, or because they were reservists, or because as civil servants they had to go to other parts of the country. They were then in this difficulty. If they left a small suburban house empty for a number of years they would have to bear a terrible burden in keeping up their mortgage payments and at the same time providing new homes in the country for their families. Some went to Cheltenham, and from my own area a large number also went to Bath on Admiralty work or to North Wales for various Ministries.
In order to help themselves out of their financial difficulty, and also to make sure that their houses were kept aired and warmed, especially in winter, many of those people were obliged to let the houses at rents which did not even cover the mortgage payments. That is true of literally hundreds of cases to my own knowledge. It was done in an attempt to keep their houses occupied and at the same time to get a little money towards their additional expenses. In many cases the rental was unreal. I can provide the figures for a number of houses if the Committee wishes, but the one I have in mind concerns a house in a typical road, where the mortgage repayments and interest amounted to 31s. 6d. a week, but the house was let at 25s. 6d. in order to assist the owner to maintain his payments. If

this Amendment were accepted the 25s. 6d. would become the standard rent.

Mr. Piratin: I was expecting the hon. Member to lead up to this. As he agreed with the logic of the argument in the first place I was following him very carefully. In fact, acceptance of this Amendment would merely mean that such a person could apply to the tribunal for a reasonable rent to be determined. If in the case just cited the tribunal decided that the rent was low, they would have power to raise it to what they considered to be a reasonable rent.

Mr. Skinnard: I am very happy that the hon. Member agrees in the case I have given that there would be definite hardship, that is if this were regarded as the normal, equitable rent for this type of house. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply on this. As I understand the Amendment, the standard rent of a dwelling house will be the rent at which it was let on a letting beginning after 1st September, 1939. All the cases I have in mind would come under that description. I must reserve my judgment, therefore, until I find out whether the Minister confirms that protection will be given to persons in the position of my constituents, who in my submission will suffer if the position is not as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Binns: There cannot be many cases of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). In practice, it was not until after the war, after the calling-up and after the bombing, that all these changes took place. Very few of the changes could have taken place prior to the outbreak of war. I support the Amendment, not merely as a representative of a constituency, but as chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. We have looked into this matter very carefully indeed, and I cannot see the logic of the Minister's case in accepting any other date than the date immediately prior to the war. The real criterion must be whether or not there was a housing shortage of such magnitude as to induce people to charge exorbitant rents for accommodation at any particular time.
It would be very difficult to find a time much worse from that point of view than the end of the war, when men were


coming back and the richer people were returning to London from which most of them fled during the war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am speaking from practical knowledge of the housing situation during the war. I speak as one who was responsible for the requisitioning of property in London to house the bombed-out people. Those who left were, in the main, those holding accommodation of a very high rental and character. The ordinary working people had to stay at their jobs because they had not the means to go away. There was a tremendous fluctuation in the position in London. These fluctuations were caused by excessive bombing and later by people returning to London. At no stage during the war could any particular date be accepted as a reasonable basis for assessment.
My own organisation told the Minister of Health in 1944 that the general stabilisation of rents payable at a given past date should be based on 1st September, 1939. We look upon that as the only rational date, and I must ask the Minister to do what he said he would do during the Second Reading Debate. He told us then that he would be—
prepared to have a look at it, and if a case can be made out for including other years I shall be prepared to consider it sympathetically."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 577–8.]

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): During the Second Reading Debate, as has been pointed out, I expressed myself as not being tied to this date, and said that I was prepared to look at it and consider the arguments advanced in favour of putting in the 1939 date. I can assure my hon. Friends that the argument for putting in the 1939 date is not nearly as weighty as they have suggested, because there is not so much property affected as they think. We are dealing very largely with new lettings, which in London are usually lettings where there have been conversions, new building and adaptations. Little, if any, of that was done in London during the war. The principal instance of new lettings is where owner-occupiers evacuated from their homes and went to other parts of the country, but many of them have re-occupied their homes since.
I wanted to hear what the Committee had to say about this, because there is always a reluctance—and later on we

shall hear a lot about the sanctity of contracts—to break agreements that have already been made. There is a natural reluctance on the part of any Minister to go back too far, because the farther he goes back, the more continuous the contract and the more painful the rupture. There have to be substantial arguments before a Minister can concede the point of making the interference with contracts retrospective to a distant date. That is what I had in mind. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard), his case is not met because there is no power under the Bill to increase rents, and therefore the relief sought for some of his constituents will not be forthcoming. However, in view of the fact that there appears to be a general desire to put this date back to 1939, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In the first place, we wish to extend our sympathy to the Minister in the personal loss he has suffered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We know how hard it is to carry on consideration of public business under such bereavement. I now pass to the clash of public business. We have seen what all of us on this side expected, and what the country expects, the Communists leading and the Socialists following. [Interruption. ] In response to the Latin tag, fas est et ab hoste doceri, of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), I would reply non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis—we do not want the help of the hon. Member for Cheltenham in the Conservative Party.
It is a singular and very revealing thing that has just happened. The Minister brings forward, in consultation with his colleagues in the Cabinet, a Measure to deal with an admittedly difficult problem. He drafts the Bill with a full realisation that to go back on existing contracts and to carry out retrospective legislation is a most serious thing. He comes forward and recommends the Measure to the House, but immediately the Communists, as one would expect, put down an Amendment, saying "Why all this trouble about retrospective legislation? Why should anyone bother about contracts or anything that does not suit the convenience of our party?" Immediately Members on the other side fall in behind and bring pressure to bear


on the Minister. The Minister buckles up and then accepts the proposal of the Communist Party.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: Ought not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be thankful to the Minister for giving the Communist Party a lesson in democracy?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can imagine nobody less grateful for a lesson in democracy than the Communist Party. That is one of the anathemas in their book of comminations. The Minister and. the Government are to blame for this, for they first introduced the suggestion that retrospective legislation should be brought forward here, and on very shadowy grounds; indeed on grounds which, by the Minister's own admission, savoured somewhat of sharp practice. However, the Minister commended the Measure to the House in his Second Reading speech—it is not his first acquaintance with the problem; he has been in charge of it ever since the Government was returned—and said that he was uneasy about the position. He did not produce any legislation to deal with it. He brought in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of which this is an amendment. In his Second Reading speech the Minister said:
I was apprehensive that if we tied a landlady or a landlord by an Act of Parliament to a propinquity which would be repugnant to either of them or both, it might have the effect of losing accommodation which might otherwise be available. In other words, I was apprehensive that people would not let rooms if having let them once, they could never get rid of the tenant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 575.]
Two conditions hold good throughout this. Having lured the public into a certain course of action, later on the Minister tears up the very defences which he has erected. He is followed and abetted in that by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who used the extraordinary word "justice" in this connection. "Expediency" might suit his book, but where justice comes in in retrospective legislation might well be queried.
We have put down an Amendment to say, as is the practice in legislation in this House, that the crime should not be a crime which has been committed before

the Measure making it a crime is placed on the Statute Book. That is ordinary elementary justice. Otherwise who can say what the Minister, the Government or the hon. Member for Mile End and his Government may decree retrospectively to be crimes. We have had enough experience of that in other parts of the world, and now the Minister and the Government, who hold themselves out as the bulwark and barrier against Communism, are taking exactly the same course about which in other parts of the world they complain so bitterly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, hon. Members cannot get away from it. This is a surrender of the Socialist Party to the Communist Party, and we mean to rub it in.

Mr. Tiffany: What a case!

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Mile End and other hon. Members opposite must put up stronger arguments than they have done so far to defend retrospective legislation. This is not simply a small matter—

Mr. Julius Silverman: Why does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman insist that this is retrospective legislation? The new standard rent simply operates from the date of determination by the tribunal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is retrospective legislation in that the date given in the Bill is a date long before the Bill becomes an Act. That is retrospective legislation. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Everybody knows that. Does the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) deny that? Does the Minister deny that? Does the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, who finds so many things so very humorous, deny that? Does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) deny it?

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting into a frightful heat. If he keeps it up at this rate throughout the Debate, he will be apoplectic before the end of it. This is a comparatively small Amendment. It is an intervention by a statutory declaration in a running contract. That happens very frequently. As a matter of fact, it is almost universally characteristic of all rent legislation, as was pointed out in the


Second Reading Debate. It is not retrospective in the sense that the tenant can recoup the arrears from the landlord. The new standard rent, if one is determined, will date from the decision of the tribunal. We are not dealing with premiums here but with the standard rent. This is an intervention in a running contract. This takes the right of considering it back to 1939 but it does not compel the landlord to disgorge anything.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not want to be too harsh with the right hon. Gentleman, but he is maintaining that argument on a very narrow point which in other cases I would characterise as sophistry. If the arguments were so strong, why did he not embody in the Bill the principle he now advances? Why bring it forward now, and why wait until an Amendment has been put down by the Communist Party? The Minister has put down enough Amendments.

Mr. Piratin: The Amendment was not put down by the Communist Party. The Communist group in Parliament put it down.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I apologise to the Communist Party for having identified the Communist group in Parliament with them. I thought the connection was close—most of us on this side of the Committee did—but if division is to be made, even in those fine shades we shall do our best to observe it. I do not think that the hon. Member for Mile End will deny that it is his Amendment to which the Minister has yielded, and that although the Minister has put down many Amendments, he has put down no such Amendment as this. Nor has such an Amendment been put down by any hon. Member belonging to the Socialist Party, although they, too, have put down many Amendments. This Amendment was put down by the Communist group in Parliament, and after the most perfunctory discussion, it was surrendered to by the Government and their supporters.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Conceding for the purposes of this argument that the principle involved is the principle of retro-active legislation, is it not clear that that principle was in the Bill as originally drawn? The Amendment proposes to leave out the date "14th

August, 1945," and substitute "1st September, 1939." It is rather an exaggeration to say that in accepting the Amendment my right hon. Friend is accepting the principle of retrospective legislation at the dictates of the Communist Party. The principle was in the Bill to start with.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not listened as he ought to have done to the directions of the Chair, which were that these Amendments—the Amendment making retrospective legislation still more retrospective and our Amendment removing the elements of retrospection—have to be discussed together. I blame the Minister—

Mr. S. Silverman: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let me finish my sentence. Even the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne generally allows a sentence to be completed before he commences his own speech. The Minister and the Government were in error in introducing retroactive legislation. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne admits this.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: He said, "Conceding for argument's sake," and the hon. Member does not usually concede anything for argument's sake unless there is no other reason by which he can escape it. The Government started upon this slippery slope of retrospective legislation. Then they tried to hold the half-way house. They were then pushed by the Communist Party, and almost immediately they went down the slippery slope at the bidding of that party. It is a great disgrace. It is a great scandal. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not contesting that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on this Bill has always said that the retrospective principle was wrong, and I quite appreciate that we are considering at one and the same time an Amendment to push it further back and an Amendment to abolish the principle altogether. However, I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was saying that the Minister had not introduced the retrospective principle in his Bill but was now introducing it because the Communist


Party told him to do so. I am pointing out that that would not be true.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I had said such a thing, it certainly would not be true, but I am within the recollection of the Committee, and my words are in the official record, that I said that the Minister had introduced the principle of retrospective legislation in the Bill but not this further Amendment in the Bill, and that he had put it in the Bill at the bidding of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the Communist group in the House of Commons. The Minister did not put down any such Amendment, nor did the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), nor did any of the hon. Members who support the Government. It was left to a group, which admittedly is in frank opposition to the Government and desires to go much further to the Left, to put down this Amendment, and it seems one of the most extraordinary surrenders that has ever been witnessed that they should so rapidly and abjectly concede that position which they were not willing to concede when they framed and introduced the legislation.

Mr. Binns: This Amendment would have been put down not by one hon. Member on this side, but by many, if it had not been for the fact that, being a democratic organisation and having written to the Minister from the boroughs of London and other municipal bodies, and having to await a democratic decision which was only received yesterday, it was not possible for us to oblige the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by having the Amendment down. I think one might congratulate the perspicacity of the hon. Gentleman who presumed he would be in Order, and perhaps successful, in crashing through the barriers and getting it down first. There is one question which I want to ask—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is a speech. I am perfectly willing to give way to an interruption, but not to a speech.

Mr. Binns: It is quite a simple question. I understand that there were rent restriction Acts which applied to the period before the last war. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether or not they were retrospective?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will appeal to the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. He knows well the Bill which was brought in after the famous decision in Keir v. Bride, and he knows well the Rent Act that was passed. We did not put that any further back than that, when notice had been given in this House that alterations would be introduced; in spite of the desire we had to make that retrospective, we did not do so. We dated it to the point at which it was said we would take steps in Parliament to remove it.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is quite correct, but I am not on the side of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman yet.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Mr. Bowles, you will see that support comes to me from unexpected quarters. When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne concedes my argument, and the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs buttresses me in my description of legislation, it will be seen that I am accurate in the submissions that I am laying before the Committee.

Dr. Segal: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Could you give us your guidance on this matter? Is it not perfectly within the right of any hon. Member in this House to put forward any Amendment he likes, provided it passes the Table? It does not follow necessarily that because this Amendment is put forward, it must be a Communist Amendment. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) is perfectly entitled to put forward a Conservative Amendment if he so wishes.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no point of Order in that. The only question is whether this Amendment is selected and found to be in Order by the Chair, not by the Table on this occasion.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is interesting to see the obvious uneasiness and wriggles now coming from hon. Members opposite to prove that somehow or other they did not fall in behind the Communists. I have never heard a weaker explanation than was given by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr Binns) when he said that, being a democratic party, they did not dare to put down


anything until they were assured in advance that it would be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Binns: I did not say that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is a definition of democracy and independence which may suit the Labour Party but would have given a great shock to the pioneers of that movement.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman contending that the mere fact that an Amendment is put down by a Member of the Communist Party of itself merits its rejection, regardless of its merits? If it is so, it is a most remarkably undemocratic doctrine.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The wriggle continues. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that I was not surprised at the Communist Party putting down the Amendment. I was drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that not one hon. Member on that side of the Committee dared to put down that Amendment, nor did the Minister, although he has put down many Amendments. It was not until the Communist Party led, that the Socialist Party followed, and that is one of the things which is causing extreme alarm and despondency on the other side and, as I say, we have no intention whatever of letting them forget it.
The Minister, after a short and perfunctory consideration—he did not wait for many speeches on this matter—hastened to fall in at the tail of the procession led by the Communist group in Parliament. The arguments which were brought forward would justify any piece of retrospective legislation in any circumstances. There is only one simple line to take, and that is that Parliament does not make a thing illegal before a Statute is placed upon the statute book. We intend to hold to it in this Committee, and we intend to divide in support of our Amendment. We shall look with great interest upon the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite to justify the extraordinary somersault they have just performed at the bidding of the Communist group in Parliament. We shall also read with the great interest the cries of glee which will be published in the "Daily Worker"

tomorrow at this astonishing victory of their relatively small group.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I rise to make one point in support of what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said in regard to the precedent for not making such legislation retrospective beyond the point where notice can be deemed to have been given by the publication of the Act. The precedent to which he referred was accepted by the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and it is a precedent very close to the present one, with the exception that there, the legislative amendment contained in the 1923 Act operated in favour of the landlords. On that occasion the 1923 Act contained an express proviso that:
nothing in this Act shall entitle a landlord after the passing of this Act to recover from a tenant, in respect of any period before the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two …
—that, presumably, being the date of the publication of the Bill. What was sauce for the goose then should surely be sauce for the gander now.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Member say how this Amendment will meet the situation he has just described? How will it affect the tenant in recovering the rent? The hon. Member, I presume, is saying that the landlord could not make it retrospective. Can he say, then, how the tenant will be able to make it restrospective under this Clause?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My point is that legislation ought not to affect parties who have taken certain actions under the law as it then stood. They should not be prejudiced by law which has a retrospective application to the position which existed before the publication of the Bill. That is the rather narrow point on which I was seeking to address the Committee. I was simply confirming what had been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend as to the precedent then followed in that Act by the House of Commons. That precedent, which was valid then, is valid today and it ought to have been followed for this Bill just as it was followed in 1923.

Mr. Bevan: May I intervene to ask the Committee to let us make a little headway? Unless we are careful we


shall have all this argument again upon another Amendment which is on the Order Paper. That other Amendment, in the names of Members of the Opposition, wipes out far more than this one does. They will, I presume, want to address themselves again to the retrospective arguments.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to our next Amendment on date?

Mr. Bevan: I do not mean the one dealing with the "appointed day" but the later one which is a far more radical Amendment and which, if carried, destroys the retrospective effect of all the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I agree with the Minister. We do not desire to delay progress. We regard the Amendment which is before us as a paving Amendment, merely to enable us to have this Debate. We do not desire to cover the same Debate again on the question of the "appointed day." I am perfectly willing to take the decision of the Committee of the Amendment we are discussing. If it falls, then our later Amendment to Clause 14, if that is the one of which the right hon. Gentleman is thinking, would fall also.

Mr. Bevan: I am referring to the Amendment in page 1, line 8, which, as I understand it, would affect both rents and premiums. If we are to discuss also that Amendment I am delighted, for our discussions, therefore, will be finished. We want to try to get the Committee stage completed today and tomorrow because a very large number of people in the country who are suffering want to end their sufferings as quickly as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like to clarify the position, Mr. Bowles. I understood from your Ruling that we are discussing our Amendment to page 1, line 8, at the same time as that moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I would point out to the Minister, therefore, that this Debate will cover both those points. On the Ruling of the Chair we cannot have the Debate again. One of those Amendments seeks to make the date earlier and the other to make it later. We on this side are perfectly prepared to have the Debate on the two Amendments

together, as agreed with the Chair, and simply to divide on them. Both the hon. Member for Mile End and I commented on the fact that our respective Amendments were being taken together when the Chair ruled that discussion of the two should go together. We certainly do not wish to repeat the Debate all over again because we share with the Minister the desire to go forward with the consideration of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I may explain. It is quite clear, I think, that these two Amendments must be taken together. They both seek to leave out all the words after the word "the," in line 8. The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) proposes to insert other words. I did not know, of course, what the Government would do. They have accepted the Amendment. Presumably, what will happen is that I shall put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." Then I shall put the Question for the insertion of the words in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants an opportunity of inserting his words, he must vote against the insertion of the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mile End. I hope that is clear. I think I am right in pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that neither of these Amendments has anything to do with premiums but that they are purely and simply concerned with when the standard rent shall be deemed to have started.

Mr. Janner: I should not have risen after the Minister, but I was under the impression, which has been increased and justified by what you have now said, Mr. Bowles, that the question we are debating is really one of principle, upon which both of these Amendments, and those which are consequential upon them, are based. I was not surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) take the line he did, for in substance there is no real answer to the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Mile End. There is no question of its being a Communist Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Oh!

Mr. Janner: Indeed it is not. The fact that the Communist Party happened to propose it—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Nobody else did
so.

Mr. Janner: I happen to have a number of Amendments later on, some of which the Minister has accepted and some of which he has not.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: How does the hon. Member know that the Minister has accepted some of his Amendments?

Mr. Janner: Some of those which he himself has put down indicate that he accepts the principle. In other cases some of his Amendments show that he has not done so. I should be very sorry if anyone in the Committee were to imagine from that that there were not other hon. Members whose views differed from mine.
There was only one answer—if there was an answer—to the Amendment which is before us: that is, that it might create for the various tribunals in the country an excessive amount of work with which they might not be able to cope. There is no other answer to the application of the Measure to be taken back so that a fair and reasonable rent can be allotted to houses which have been let since the commencement of the war. The second argument—which the Minister has admitted, I think rightly—is that the number of cases affected would not be so large as to overburden the tribunals. The Minister himself has said that they are not likely to cover very many cases and that, consequently, tribunals would be able to deal with them within the time at their disposal, by reason of their knowledge of the various districts concerned.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman claimed that the proposal is retrospective. We ought to dispose of this argument, this bogy, once and for all, before we go on with the rest of the Debate, for that is a complaint which will constantly be raised. I think, therefore, we ought to realise the true position. Every one of the rent Acts, in the sense of being retrospective, is as retrospective as the Amendment. The procedure was started with the Act of 1915. Then came the 1920 Act. Next was the 1923 Act, which attempted to put matters where they were

before 1915, but the Conservative Government found that they had to go back to the 1920 Act, in spite of the fact that they tried to decontrol. In 1933, and again in 1938, apart from other Acts which intervened, they realised that they had to introduce retrospective legislation, in the sense that the Amendment is retrospective, in order that grasping landlords—I do not say all landlords—should be prevented from imposing unreasonable rents.
4.30 p.m.
How can the right hon. Gentleman be heard to say again, after this legislation has been in existence well over 20 years, that he did not know that the whole commencement of this legislation was based on a matter of a few words contained in the principal Acts which said:
any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding"?
This kind of legislation is legislation enacted in spite of agreements; I will go further, and say because of agreements which have been entered into which are unreasonable. The experience we have had in the course of the administration of the Rent Acts has been very unfortunate. One can go into a street and find houses next to each other rented at very different rentals. There is a considerable amount of complaint about it. The principal Acts cover certain cases and the 1939 Act covers other cases. Why should we perpetuate this unfortunate trouble which arises? If we do so, we find that a dwellinghouse rented since the war, after 1945, may have twice the rental of a dwellinghouse rented in 1945. By that we are merely perpetuating the very vicious system which would make for further chaos. Apart from that, it would be unreasonable.
This Bill does not say that every person who has rented a house is to come to a tribunal, but that every person who thinks the rent unreasonable will have an opportunity of coming to a tribunal to get a reasonable rent allotted. Can there be anything wrong in that? Surely hon. Members in the Tory Party will not deny the fact that a house should not be let at a rent which is unreasonable? My hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) should realise that if the rent is below a reasonable rent—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not talking about that, but about a very small point arising out of the Amendment. That is, what is the standard rent and what is the date at which it should be regarded as having started?

Mr. Janner: Whilst I am prepared to accept your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, with the greatest respect, I do not thing it is a very small point, but a point which is extremely important to the whole country. If we concede this, we shall find ourselves confronted with the same difficulty on every Amendment without exception. With the greatest respect, in the course of 30 years I have been able to acquire a certain amount of information which enables me to see what is the position. In so far as these houses are concerned the Amendment means this—

The Deputy-Chairman: Surely the hon. Member understands that when I interrupted him he should not go further with what he was saying and that he will be out of Order if he pursues that further.

Mr. Janner: The object of the Amendment is that between 1939 and the date which is contemplated by the Bill houses of a rateable value of £100 and below in London and £75 elsewhere which were let, should in future be let at a reasonable rent. That is precisely what I am endeavouring to illustrate. I say there can be no argument at all against letting those houses at a reasonable rent. If a tenant applies in respect of a house let between 1939–45 for a reduction of the rental, a subsection of this Clause would protect him, because all the circumstances have to be taken into consideration by the tribunal and I have not the slightest doubt that that circumstance to which the right hon. and gallant Member referred would be taken into their purview.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Member agree that, if what he says is right, this legislation should have been introduced in the first Session of this Parliament and would to that extent have diminished the retrospective effects of the Bill? Was not the 1939 Act, which he has criticised by comparison, based on prescience, because it provided against the contingency of which he has spoken?

Mr. Janner: I answer that by saying that I have been pressing for this kind of legislation for a considerable time.

If the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) had been here at Question time from day to day he would have heard a number of Questions put to that effect. Now that the Government have seen the light, why does the hon. Member interfere? I am happy that the Minister is prepared to agree to this.
I wish to say a word about my own constituency. A large number of people came there from London and their rentals were fixed by those who allowed them to come into their homes. I am not going to say that among those there were not a number who might have taken advantage of the situation in consequence of the pressure brought to bear on people from London and other cities to go there. I do not think there was a large number, but there were some. It is not only the rent for the tenant who is in that must be considered, but this rent prevails in the subsequent tenancy even if there happened to be a gap between the present tenancy and the later tenancy. In these days a person would be called upon to pay an unreasonable rental if the tribunals were not in a position to assess what was a reasonable rental from 1939 on.

Mr. Bevan: I want to make one thing clear to the Committee which, apparently, is not clear at the moment. I am not quite certain which leads to the longer Debate, the Minister giving in, or the Minister holding out. I hope the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is quite clear that if his Amendment which we are discussing is accepted in the Division Lobbies, it will be clear that the tribunals will not be able to arbitrate on premiums. We are not only discussing the first Amendment, which relates to standard rents, but the second Amendment also, which talks of the appointed day. The first part of Clause 2 says:
Where on an application under the foregoing Section it appears to the Tribunal that any premium has been paid. …
That would be after the appointed day, if his Amendment were accepted. I want the right hon. and gallant Member to be quite clear about this. If he is clear about it, there was a certain sleight of hand about it, because in talking of the sanctity of contracts if he knew he was arguing to prevent the taking back of premiums, he should have said so.


Or was the attack on me for having accepted an Amendment moved by a Communist Member of the House, a cover to protect him from the charge that he was trying to protect all exorbitant premiums which have been paid since 1945? That is the effect of his Amendment. If it were carried, it should he clear that no premiums could be covered.
I do not know whether this charge about the Communist Party in this House and the Labour Party was intended for consumption where there are certain conflicts going on at the present time, but it is a most astonishing argument that if an Amendment with which one agrees appears on that Order Paper one must either repeat the Amendment oneself or be charged with having followed the person who put the Amendment down. It is a most ridiculous argument. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes certain things to be presumed or decided, or understood by the public outside and to be realised where these conflicts are now taking place, I charge the Opposition with trying to protect all the rack-renting and new lettings that have gone on in London since the war.
I say that, because if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment were carried, no appeal could be made to the tribunal to recover any part of the premium, nor indeed could any appeal be made in regard to standard rents in the past. In point of fact, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was confused. I would rather accuse him of stupidity than of chicanery, but if it was a fact that he knew all the while that what he was trying to do was to protect exorbitant premiums which had been exacted from poor bewildered people trying to obtain accommodation in London, the Conservative Party should say so, and not try to hide it under an appearance of guilelessness.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has the most singular way of trying to forward the progress of business which I have ever seen. Only a few moments ago he was appealing to us to press on with business. He is now inveighing against us on this side of the Committee for not having carried on a complete Second Reading Debate. We are perfectly willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman on that or any other point, but I was certainly not unaware,

nor were my hon. Friends, of the effect of our Amendment. We object to retrospective legislation, and we have said so. The argument which we ventured to lay before the Committee was an argument on the grounds of common justice.
The Minister's argument that if an Amendment is put down, everybody else is precluded from putting their names to it is one of the most extraordinary contentions that has ever been placed before this House. It is well known how a Minister or any other Member signifies his approval of an Amendment. They put their names on a list; they put their names on the Order Paper. This was, of course, the Minister's surrender to the Communist Party. I never thought that in so short a time that we should be able to bring so strong a pressure on so powerful a Minister as to involve him in so immediate a wriggle as that in which he has just indulged. He is carrying out his favourite gambit that the best form of defence is attack. One can always tell how strong the right hon. Gentleman feels the need for defence by the acridity which he throws into his attack.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is not that the method of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is certainly not my way, nor indeed has it ever been my way, to inject acridity into my remarks. If it comes to charges, one might bring pretty heavy charges against the Minister for having, in the earlier stages of this Parliament, deliberately deluded and tricked the unhappy people of this country into courses of action which he himself, on his own explicit admission, would not have expected them to follow had they expected legislation of this kind which he now brings forward.
That is a serious matter. For a Minister of the Crown, on his own admission, to be convicted out of his own mouth is as serious a charge and as justified a charge as has ever been brought upon the Floor of the House. We are not in the least running away from our Amendment or any of the implications in it. We do not desire to argue the whole matter here, as we desire to get on with the Bill. There are many further proposals which we wish to put forward. We wish to make it clear what is the position in regard to the point which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner)


brought up, as to whether rents could be increased or decreased by the tribunals. There are the directions to be given to the tribunals; there is the termination. All those matters are to come before us, and all are of the utmost importance to the ordinary people of this country.
4.45 p.m.
We have seen at the beginning a change of front on the part of the Minister from which he vainly endeavours to extricate himself. He is not quite sure whether we are guilty of stupidity or chicanery. We leave both these matters to the judgment of the Minister, who by his great experience is well calculated to give a ruling upon either of them. We are perfectly content to stand by the Amendment which we put upon the Order Paper and to defend that Amendment in the Division Lobby. We desire to proceed to that Division and to stamp upon the Division records of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this scandalous piece of injustice and shameless surrender of which they have been guilty.

Mr. Marlowe: I wish to deal with the essential point of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). That Amendment has the effect of bringing within the ambit of the tribunal not only those houses first let after 1945 but those first let after September, 1939. The Minister of Health is perfectly right in saying that once the date is extended further backwards, the functions of the tribunal both as regards rent and premium are brought in. The point with which I wish to deal arises because I think that the Committee has to some extent, no doubt inadvertently, been misled by the hon. Member for Mile End. The hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) pointed out that a number of houses were let in those years between 1939 and 1945 at rentals considerably below those they would ordinarily have commanded in a free market, and considerably below their recognised value. A number of properties were let at what one might call blitz or evacuation rentals.
I agreed with the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) when he rather emphasised the necessity to ensure that houses are not let at unreasonable rentals. But the hon. Member fell into the error, as other hon. Gentlemen opposite do,

of thinking that a rental can only be unreasonably high. It can also be unreasonably low. When the hon. Member for East Harrow made that point, which was a perfectly good and fair one, the hon. Member for Mile End, no doubt from a misunderstanding of the Bill, said "It is all right. The tribunal can increase the rent." That is not true. The tribunal cannot increase the rent. Where these houses are let at an unreasonably low rental they will continue to have a standard rent which is unreasonably low. It is grossly unfair that people whose property was let in those unusual circumstances—they were out of London because of evacuation and their property was let at an unreasonably low rent—should now be told that that is to be the standard rent. I regard it as unfair that that should be the permanent rent of a house which was originally let in such unusual conditions.

Mr. Piratin: After my interjection when the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) was speaking, my attention was drawn to my mistake, but the discussion had proceeded and the Minister later intervened to correct the point. The matter is not affected either way by the Amendment, because on the one hand it is not affected by the original phrasing of the Bill, and on the other hand it falls within the provisions of the 1939 Act that the first letting is the one which applies. In either case the hon. and learned Member has no case.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member is still under a misapprehension. I accept that he did not appreciate the effect of what he was saying on the last occasion, and I presume that the same applies to his last remark. What will happen now is that the standard rent will be what may well have been an evacuation rent, and not one properly related to value. The minds of hon. Members should be addressed to that point, because it has become obscured. I want to show the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that we were not fully aware of what we were doing, that we are under no misapprehension. We are not only against going back to 1939; we are against going back to 1945, as would be the case under this Bill. We believe it to be quite wrong that bargains made in that way should be reopened. That is the


whole point of our Amendment with regard to the appointed day.
We believe that the alteration to the law should be as from now, and not as from a past time when people entered into bargains believing that they were binding contracts which could not be reopened. If it was a principle of the Labour Party that they should be re-opened, the frankest thing would have been for them to have said so in their election policy and to have made that clear when they first came here with a majority in 1945. If they had done that it would have been legitimate for them to make those alterations. My complaint is that three years have been allowed to slip by in which people have altered their position and have acted upon the assumption that the bargain was irrevocable, and they now find the law altered against them not only so far as 1945 is concerned but right back for the last 10 years or so. That I believe to be an intolerable position, and this Amendment should be resisted.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: If there be any objection to the Minister accepting this Amendment it cannot be on the lines indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). He contends that the effect of this Amendment is to make the standard rent of a dwelling house the rent at which it was first let after 1st September, 1939. That is exactly the position with regard to the 1939 Rent Restriction Act. This Amendment can make no difference at all from that point of view. It would be wrong if the impression went out that Parliament was passing retrospective legislation in this respect. Hon. Members who have attacked the provision on those lines have missed the point.
The evil of retrospective legislation is that the past conduct of parties who were acting legally at the time is examined, and then by a new Act that past conduct creates a liability on the parties. That

is where I think the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walter-Smith) fell into error. The decisions given under the present Rent Restrictions Act are retrospective in the sense that the tenant who applies to a county court to have a standard rent fixed can claim back overpayment; if he has paid an excess of rent over the standard rent in the past he can claim it back. Under this provision he cannot claim anything back. If the past rent was £6 a week and the tribunal fixes it for the future at £2 a week, he cannot claim back the excess of £4 a week. It is only fixed as from the future. Presumably a premium is intended to cover the whole period of a tenancy.

Let it be remembered that the vast majority of these contracts are only weekly contracts and are subject to termination by a week's notice. Is it maintained that Parliament cannot step in during the running of a contract which is oppressive to one side, because there is not equal bargaining power, and that in the future the position shall be as fixed by Parliament? We have done it time and time again in hire purchase contracts.

Mr. Marlowe: I agree that there is a case for interfering with a running contract, but my point is that a premium does not constitute a running contract but an executed contract which is a very different thing.

Mr. Roberts: By his very interruption the hon. and learned Gentleman implicitly the validity of the argument which his leaders have put forward.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 117

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[4.57 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Bacon, Miss A.
Bing, G. H. C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Balfour, A. 
Binns, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Barstow, P. G
Blackburn, A. R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Barton, C.
Blenkinsop, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge


Attewell, H. C.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bramall, E. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Benson, G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Awbery, S. S.
Berry, H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Aytes, W. H.
Beswick, F.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Bevan, Rt. Hon, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.




Burden, T. W.
Hubbard, T
Piratin, P.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Byers, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Popplewell, E.


Carmichael, James
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Chater, D.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pryde, D. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Cobb, F. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Randall, H. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Johnston, Douglas
Ranger, J.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J.


Colman, Miss G. M
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reeves, J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rhodes, H.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Keenan, W
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kendall, W. D
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cullen, Miss
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Daggar, G.
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Daines, P.
Kirby, B. V
Rogers, G. H. R.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, N. H
Simmons, C. J


Deer, G.
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)


Donovan, T.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipton, Lt. -Col. M
Snow, J. W


Dumpleton, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Solley, L. J


Dye, S.
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank


Edelman, M.
McAdam, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McEntee, V. La T
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G.
Stubbs, A. E


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Symonds, A. L.


Farthing, W. J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Follick, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tiffany, S.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Timmons, J.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Titterington, M. F


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tolley, L.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gilzean, A.
Messer, F.
Usborne, Henry


Glanville, J.E. (Consel.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Vernon, Mai W E.


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Walker, G. H.


Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Watson, W. M.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Moyle, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Murray, J. D.
West, D. G.


Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Guy. W. H.
Naylor, T. E.
Whitelay, Rt. Hon. W.


Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wilkes, L.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hardman, D. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Wills, E.


Haworth, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wise, Major F. J.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parker, J
Woods, G. S.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hicks, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)



Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hoy, J.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Richard Adams and




Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Channon, H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barlow Sir J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Carbett, Lieut.-Col. U, (Ludlow)


Bannett, Sir P.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Boothby, R.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crowder, Capt. John E.


Bossom, A. C.
Butcher, H. W.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Bower, N.
Challen, C.
Davidson, Viscountess







De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Digby, S. W
Low, A. R. W.
Renton, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Donner, P.W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robinson, Roland


Drayson, G B.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Drewe, C.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Scott, Lord W.


Eccles, D. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, E. P.(Ashford)


Erroll, F. J.
McFarlane, C. S
Smithers, Sir W


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Spearman, A. C M


Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Maclean, F H. R. (Lancaster)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
MacLeod, J.
Stoddart -Scott, Col. M


Galbraith, Cmdr. T, D. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Studholme, H. G


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macpherson, N, (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gammans, L. D.
Maitland, Comdr J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't' n, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, William


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Marsden, Capt A.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Touche, G. C.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker-Smith, D


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Howard, Hon. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
White, Sir D,(Fareham)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr, Clark (Edrn'gh, W.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
White, J, B.(Canterbury)


Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Keeling, E. H.
Peak, Rt. Hon. D
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig, C. H. M
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Langford-Holt, J
Pickthorn, K.



Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Prescott, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brie. O
Major Conant and




Brigadier Mackeson.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
or
(c) the maximum rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease.
The Clause enables a person to take injustices to the rent tribunal to be put right. This is a very simple Amendment. It deals with perhaps a small number of cases, but I believe that hon. Members will agree unanimously that they ought to be dealt with. The standard rent of a house is at present the rent at a certain date, but the definition of that term contains this proviso:
Provided that, in the case of any dwelling-house let at a progressive rent payable under a tenancy agreement or lease, the maximum rent payable under such tenancy agreement or lease shall be the standard rent; and, where at the date by reference to which the standard rent is calculated, the rent was less than the rateable value the rateable value at that date shall be the standard rent.
That means that a person who has let a house at one rental at the time when the actual occupation of the house takes place is able to make a condition that subsequently the rent shall be much higher after certain periods have elapsed. Perhaps I may give a simple illustration. A man might let a house to which the Rent Restriction Acts apply for £50 a

year for the first three years. He might put in his agreement—I will take an extreme case to make the point clearer—that after the three years the rent shall be £300 a year, and that in the subsequent period below 14 years the rent shall be raised to £500 or £1,000 a year. It is obvious that the Acts never intended that a person should be in a position to charge a ridiculous rental. I am given to understand that a fair number of persons have taken advantage of this proviso in order to cover themselves against what the Rent Acts intended, namely, to keep rents at a reasonable ceiling level.
It is obvious that this kind of thing has been done, because a certain number of cases have been reported in which the question has been discussed what type of rental a progressive rental could be. The courts have held in quite a wide range of cases that the progressive rental applies. I hope that the Minister will agree, as I am sure any reasonable person must agree, that there can be no reason for continuing a situation of that sort. In passing, I would say that it is clear that the Governments which introduced the Rent Acts or which have taken up the matter from time to time have never realised what the effect of that proviso would be.

Mr. Bevan: It was not clear to me against what the hon. Member was directing his Amendment. I therefore wanted to hear his explanation before making


up my mind. Having listened to what he said, I imagine there to be very few cases to which the Amendment would apply. Nevertheless, there is no reason why, if there is hardship, even if it happens in a few cases, the Statute should not remove the hardship. I cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, but I will look at the point. If protection is necessary in such a case, I will myself put down an Amendment at a subsequent stage.

Mr. Janner: In view of that statement by the Minister I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "section," to insert: "the landlord or."

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): This Amendment might conveniently be discussed with four related Amendments in lines 14, 22, and 24.

Commander Galbraith: I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee, as the five Amendments fall into line. The Minister has shown himself in a generous frame of mind this afternoon. I hope that his generosity has not been quite exhausted. Even if it be so, I am certain that he will feel that my Amendment is so just and reasonable that he has no option but to accept it. If my Amendment were accepted it would make the wording read as follows:
then subject to the provisions of this section, the landlord or the tenant may make application to the Tribunal.
I think the Committee will agree that the landlord ought to be given the same treatment and to have the same rights as are given to the tenant. Further, this Amendment would bring this Bill into line with the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, where, in Section 2, Subsection (1), it says:
… it shall be lawful for either party to the contract … to refer the contract to the tribunal. …
I think, therefore, that we should attempt to keep this Bill in line with that Act. In any case, surely both the parties to the contract should be given the same rights. There are, no doubt, many cases where, for one reason or another, the landlord has let a house at a lower rent

than that which he could have obtained for it. There are cases where he lets the house to a relative, for example. There are other cases where he lets a house to a friend, or to one of whom he has knowledge, whose income was low and whom he wished to help. In all these cases we think the landlord should have the opportunity of letting the house on a subsequent occasion and of going to the tribunal for them to fix what they consider, in all the circumstances, is a reasonable rent.
With regard to the other Amendments to which I am speaking, that is, the two Amendments to line 14 and the Amendments to lines 22 and 24, they permit of the standard rent being raised by the tribunal as well as being lowered. That again seems to be fair. Why should a tribunal be allowed to move only in one direction? Surely, if they think it right and proper that the rent should be raised, they should have the opportunity of doing it. I would suggest, also, that that would be a very good means of preventing too much work being thrown on the tribunal by way of frivolous appeals and applications. If people know that the tribunal may well decide that a rent is too low, and that it should be increased, those who have no real claim will be very shy of taking action.
I do not think I need say any more. The case is perfectly clear and straightforward. It is purely a matter of justice and it also brings the provisions of this Bill into line with the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I wish to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said. This is a question of justice. We are asking, first, that the landlord should have equal rights with the tenant. There will probably not be a large number of cases where the landlord will wish, or need, to go to the tribunal with a request to raise a rent which is unreasonably low. There are quite a large number of cases where, for charitable reasons or unusual reasons which one need not go into, the rent is far below what the Minister himself would judge to be a reasonable rent. In promising that he would accept the principle of the last Amendment, the Minister gave the reason that although he did not


think there would be a large number of such cases, he wished to ensure in any legislation put on the Statute Book that as much justice as possible would be done. Therefore, I think the first point is one which should commend itself to him. It is merely a point of normal equity and justice.
The last four Amendments extend this same principle of justice by allowing the tribunal to raise a rent when an applicant has made a request for the rent to be lowered and when, in the opinion of the tribunal, such a person is wasting the time of the tribunal in putting forward an unjust case. Then the tribunal can, because it is, we hope, a just and efficient body, say, "You are wasting our time. You have no right to bring this case. Far from having your rent lowered, in justice and reason it should be raised."
That, again, is surely a principle which the Minister need have no hesitation in accepting. It would have this deterring effect, that it would stop stupid, unreasonable people taking up the time of what will be an extremely busy body. That being so, I hope that the Minister will accept these principles. In normal law if someone appeals against a sentence, and in the view of the Court of Appeal his appeal is a frivolous one, that person can get a far heavier sentence as a result of having put forward an appeal for which there was no justification. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue in his sunny mood and will extend to the Conservative Party the same generosity which he has so far saved for the Communist Party.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member may be surprised to learn that I am disposed to accept the first of these Amendments, but not, I am afraid, for the reasons he has adduced. The first Amendment would have a limited application. It appears to me to be quite reasonable that a landlord should be able, if he so wishes, to find out what the reasonable rent would be, because he might wish to dispose of his property, or he might wish to have it valued. At some subsequent stage the value of the property might be affected because the standard rent might have been varied. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the landlord should not have power to remove doubts. The first Amendment seems to be perfectly reasonable and I am prepared to accept it.
I am not prepared to accept the subsequent Amendments which would arm the tribunals with a power to increase rents. I am not prepared to accept it for reasons which I hope hon. Members will accept as cogent. We are now dealing with standard rents and with a situation created by the Acts before 1939, which say that the standard rents shall be the first rents charged. There is no justification for lifting this class of property from the rest of rent-controlled property and enabling the tribunals to increase those rents and leave all other standard rents untouched.
The Opposition might say in reply to that, "That is because of your injustice in not bringing forward a much more ambitious Bill and enabling all the Rent Restriction Acts to be varied." I explained on Second Reading why I did not think it would be wise to do that now. I am certain that if by some mischance the Opposition were in power they would be extremely reluctant to do it also, because a very awkward situation might arise in different parts of the country.
In the housing world at the moment there does not exist anything which can be described as a willing seller and a willing buyer. We are still in a situation which justified the perpetuation of rent control before the war. Until we have reached a situation where it is as easy for the tenant to quarrel with the landlord as it is for the landlord to quarrel with the tenant, it would be unjust to lift the umbrella which the rent control Acts erect over the tenants. It is a misapplication to say that what hon. Members opposite want to do is exactly what was done in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. Although they were right in saying that a landlord could get an increase in the rent, that was a very limited application. Section 2 (4) of that Act says:
Where on any reference of a contract, the rent whereunder includes payment for services, the Tribunal are of opinion that it would be proper that the rent payable for the premises should include an amount in respect of increase since the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, in the cost of providing such services …
The situation in regard to furnished lettings varies enormously as distinct from the properties we are now considering. Some most curious situations have arisen at the tribunals where sometimes they have had to assess the value of antique furniture. That is an entirely different


situation from the one we are now discussing. Therefore, I am afraid that in the circumstances, whilst it is reasonable that the landlord should be able to go to the tribunal in order to reassure himself as to what the appropriate standard rent would be, I consider that it would be entirely inappropriate to extend this and to enable the tribunals to do what they cannot do with any other property, and that is to increase the standard rent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this point? He has referred to Section 2 (4) of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. As he knows, there is also a power in the tribunal on a second reference for change of circumstances to take the course suggested by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Bevan: The circumstance which could have changed would have been a variation in the services rendered.

Mr. Molson: I am not entirely surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. His method of seeking to justify his attitude is typical of his usual manner of debating. He comes along with a Bill which is a partial attempt to deal with a certain part of the law relating to rent restriction. He seeks to justify the injustice of the Bill by saying that there is a far greater extent of injustice already existing—

Mr. Tiffany: Not at all.

Mr. Molson: That is precisely what he said. The fact that the Minister has accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has added greatly to the desirability of this present Amendment being accepted. During the war it was recognised that some parts of the country were evacuation areas and other parts were reception areas. The rents of houses let in the reception areas tended to be extremely high and those in the evacuation areas were extremely low. Under the operation of the law at present there are these particularly unfortunate and unhappy parts of the country which suffered relatively more than the rest where the rents have been fixed.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mile End and is proposing to extend the operations of these tribunals

so as to rectify the injustice, as he would say it is, to the tenants who took houses in the reception areas during the war at an inflated rent, there is a completely logical argument in favour of extending the operations of the same tribunals to the evacuated areas in order to rectify the injustice which was done by the war to those who owned houses at that time and were obliged to let them at a very low rent.
This is perhaps the plainest and most palpable example of the spirit of this Government. It is their only desire to do justice to those whom they regard as their own potential supporters. Justice now has ceased to be a thing which applies to all His Majesty's subjects. It is only to be applied to those upon whom the Labour Party expect to rely for support at the next Election.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I wish to confirm everything that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said. There is a lot of confused thought among the supporters of the Government about what is affected by this Amendment. They have this idea of the great landlord who owns many acres of land and huge house properties. Those people are practically non-existent today. The people who are vitally affected by this Measure are those with small fixed incomes who, having worked hard for the whole of their lives and having saved up a certain amount of money for their old age, have invested that money in small house property. They may have bought a small bungalow and the one next door, and they may have decided to live on the income of the second house during their old age.
Many hundreds of thousands of people like that are feeling the pinch very much. They have done nothing wrong against the Socialist Party. All they have done has been to work hard all their lives. They have had no contributory pension, but have saved up for their old age, and I suggest that all we are asking the Minister to do is to make it possible for them to put their cases to a tribunal—not that their rents be automatically raised, but that their case should be heard before a perfectly normal tribunal appointed by the Minister—which would decide whether or not it is justifiable in such cases to raise the rent.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Janner: First of all, I should like to clear away once and for all this foolish idea of trying to make out that the Socialist Party is not prepared to help the small property owner, and that it is the Tory Party, which has been in power for so long, which has done everything in their interests.
This is not the simple matter which hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of this Amendment would have the Committee believe. I think the Minister was perfectly right when he said that this proposal would strike at the root of the whole of the legislation placing ceiling prices upon the rents of houses, because it would mean that, for the first time in relation to unfurnished houses, they would have an opportunity of taking their case to rent tribunals, which were not set up specifically for that purpose, in order to permit an increase. I think the Minister is right in saying that there may come a time—and I hope it will not be far distant—when all these Rent Acts will be consolidated together, but as they are at present, this would create a ludicrous situation. If the Rent Acts are right, and if there must be a restriction placed upon increases in rent, then the Acts have been clear, perhaps not in all cases, but certainly on the point that there were certain rentals which could be charged, and that any person who wanted to let his premises knew what amount he could charge for them.
It is true that some people may have charged a rental which was less than they ought to have charged, but if hon. Members listened to the discussion on one of the earlier Amendments on which I spoke, they will realise that, in a case where a landlord wanted to protect himself, the Acts gave him an opportunity for that to be done. All he needed to have done was to have provided in his agreement that the rent would be so much for so long, and that in a year or six months later it would be so much more, and so on. In that way he could have covered himself for a standard rent which would have enabled him to meet those contingencies which were likely to occur, or even those not likely to arise and which would arise only in remote cases.
The actual position is that when a person lets a house he knows what rent

he is entitled to charge, whether under the 1939 Act or under the previous Acts, provided that he let it after those Acts had been passed. I suggest that it would be unreasonable to ask a tenant who is paying a rental—not only may it be a weekly rent, but this particular Amendment might refer to rentals over many years—to pay a higher rental in respect of an arrangement which the landlord undertook knowing what was the highest rental which he could demand.
This is a very different thing from the question of reduction of rent. I know that the story sounds very plausible when hon. Members ask the Committee to do the same for the landlord as for the tenant, but let us look at the difference. The difference is that the landlord, under the 1939 Act, was enabled to charge whatever rent he liked, provided it was the first rental. I do not know whether it is appreciated by those hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Amendment that, where a landlord charged an unreasonable rent, the tenant had to accept it if he wanted a roof over his head. It is quite obvious that hon. Members opposite realise that a situation has arisen in which, in a very large number of cases, this higher rental is very different from the case of the tenant entering into an agreement covered by the Rents Restriction Acts, when the landlord knew what was the maximum rent he could charge.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is arguing on the basis of what rent a landlord was enabled to charge under the 1939 Act, knowing what were the conditions then. Conditions today are quite different from conditions in 1939, when, under an agreement, the landlord was enabled to charge a certain rent, and now he is not enabled to raise his rent, without the increased costs of repairs and upkeep being taken into consideration. It seems to me that that is not reasonable.

Mr. Janner: The hon. and gallant Gentleman happens to represent me in this House, though he does not represent my point of view on all matters. I am afraid that he has fallen into the error into which so many people fall in consequence of the complexity of the Acts. I do not blame him; there are very few people who understand the Acts at all,


and I should be the last person to presume that I understand them, although I ought to do, in consequence of the number of times on which I have had to appear concerning them. The 1939 Act does not say that the landlord has to do the repairs, and it is different from the earlier Acts. Consequently, the argument which is so often advanced by property owners sounds very plausible, but misleads people in consequence of the fact that they do not know what the provisions of the 1939 Act really are. The landlord knows what they are, and, of course, there are exceptions and there are landlords who do repairs, although they are not bound to do them. In the majority of cases, however, it is the tenant who has to do the repairs, and he suffers pretty heavily.
The fact of the matter is that the idea of permitting an increase of rent, which sounds reasonable, is not reasonable in consequence of the fact that the 1939 Act and previous Acts have made special provision as to what rent can be charged. The landlord had it in his power not only to charge what rent he liked at the time of letting, but to enter into an agreement to charge a higher rental later on. Consequently, the position is entirely different, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, having realised that, will now see that it is not unreasonable that their Amendment should be turned down.

Mr. Marlowe: I wish to come back to the Amendment after the Second Reading speech and the dissertation on the law of property by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). We are dealing here with the simple question of whether the landlord has the right—which the Minister has now admitted to the Committee he has—to have a certain justice done to him when he gets to the tribunal. The first thing which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted is that the landlord ought to be allowed to get to a tribunal, but I can assure him that by simply limiting it to that, the landlord is going to say, "Thank you for nothing," because merely allowing him to go is not going to enable him, in some cases, to obtain justice. I am surprised at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he could not do this because it meant a considerable change in the Rent Restriction Act. I agree that it

does, but I have never known the right hon. Gentleman miss his opportunity. I have always regarded him as a considerable opportunist, and I am amazed that he let such a chance as this go by.
I should like the Committee to be clear as to what it is that the landlord ought to have when he gets to the tribunal because I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's mind is capable of addressing itself dispassionately to this problem. Whenever he uses the word "landlord" he always prefixes it with the word "unscrupulous"; he believes them to be indivisible. But there are a lot of landlords who are not unscrupulous, and who only want a reasonable return on their property. If the Minister looks at the wording of the Bill, he will see that is all our Amendment would do. The right hon. Gentleman is denying them the right to what is admittedly reasonable because, having included them by his acceptance of the first Amendment, he has made the Clause read:
The tenant or the landlord may make application to the tribunal to determine what rent is reasonable.
That is all for which we are asking. Is there anything wrong with that? If, indeed, the rent is too low, then the right hon. Gentleman is insisting that they should have an unreasonable limit. I cannot see how he justifies that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said, lettings in evacuation areas took place at unreasonably low rents. Why should not such landlords be allowed to go to the tribunal to have their present rents made reasonable? Why should the right hon. Gentleman insist on their being under the disability of having to continue to receive an unreasonable return on their property? I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this problem is deeply influenced by his belief that no owners of property are capable of doing justice to their tenants. Does not he realise that whatever the view of the landlord might be, he would be governed by the tribunal. He would not have an opportunity of exercising "extortion" which is a word the right hon. Gentleman likes to use in relation to landlords. He would have to receive the reasonable rent which the tribunal would be empowered to award. By his refusal to accept this Amendment, one is left with


the impression that the right hon. Gentleman does not approve of landlords getting a reasonable rent for their property.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I was deeply interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) because I have always thought that he had a very considerable knowledge of this matter. He took us—as he often does with considerable skill—down a side line in regard to this Amendment, and pointed out where the Act is completely complicated. After all, everyone knows that the Rent Restrictions Acts are full of anomalies and complications of every sort. The main purpose of all of us, particularly in times of shortage, is to endeavour to keep rents at a fair level.
The Minister very kindly said just now, "Oh yes, we accept the position as regards the first Amendment," which means that he gives to owners of property the power to go before a tribunal and to ask what is a fair rent. I am really deeply thankful for that concession. I always believe in giving credit where it is due. As far as that goes, I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a vast number of small owners of property in my Division who feel very aggrieved at the present position. As has been said already in this Debate, there is a terrific number of people in this country who have let their property, and who are suffering from a sense of grievance. They will now be able to go to the tribunal and ask whether the rents charged are fair rents, and will be able to satisfy themselves that what they are doing is right or wrong. If the tribunal says that the rent is too high, then the position is perfectly clear.
But then we come to the position which we want to remedy. Supposing we find that an owner of a house has been letting it at too low a rent, then, because the Government will not accept the Amendment moved from this side of the Committee, we have the curious position of a tribunal saying that the rent is unfair and the law stepping in and preventing it from being made fair. It will mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is always urging us to earn money, will not get as much taxation as he might. Obviously, if the tribunal says that the rent should be 1ls. or 12s. instead of 10s.

there will presumably be more Income Tax to be paid, so that the Chancellor loses by this curious anomaly.
A considerable amount of war damage was done in my area, not as much as in some others, I agree, but it was one of the fairly badly damaged areas. I wish to ask a rather technical question to which, frankly, I do not know the answer. Supposing a house was damaged during the war, that it was let at a limited rent before the war, that it is only now put into repair, that the cost to the owner had probably been very considerable in many ways ever since, that now, it not having been let for a considerable number of years, the landlord goes to the tribunal, as apparently he can in certain circumstances to which this Clause applies, what is his position under the Clause as it now stands? He may be able to go to the tribunal and get to the point of their saying that the rent is fair or unfair, but he can do nothing whatever to try to remedy the position.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us some clarification as far as that case is concerned. It is one of the things which those of us who represent such areas should be able to clear up, not in the interest of either side, but in the interest of common fairness. I put those points to the Minister, and I would like to emphasise that I thank him for having made a concession which can have no real operation whatever as far as doing anything real is concerned. Having made the concession, he then says that he is not going to make another change which might bring fairness in a few cases. He said he would not do it because there was something new in it. Supposing the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), the Communist boss behind him, had told the Minister to do something new he would have done it at once, but because it is something really new, something which really might help, he sits there and says he cannot do it. I see the hon. Member for Mile End smiling at the tribute I have paid to his prowess. Supposing he asked the Minister to make this Amendment, how long would it be before we had the Minister crawling into his lap and giving way, as he always does to those who are just a shade further to the Left, so far as this Amendment is concerned, then he happens to be at this moment.

Mr. Gammans: I want to ask the Minister a question. What is his answer, and what is the Government's answer, to people who let their houses for the first time during the war at a fixed rental? This is the point raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson); what is the Minister's answer to people who went away—some of them went to the war and others left because they were civil servants and were sent to other parts of the country—and who for the first three or four years of the war, especially in London, let their houses at rents which it would be admitted are below what is a just and proper rent? What is the Government's attitude towards these people? I represent some of them, as does every hon. Member who represents a London constituency. Is the Minister going to say, "We deny you the right to come to a tribunal and ask for your rent to be adjusted in accordance with what should be a proper rent"? Is that the attitude of the Government? If it is, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would say so in order that we may know where we stand.

Sir John Mellor: In resisting the proposal that the tribunals should be empowered to raise rents, the right hon. Gentleman resisted it not on the ground that it might not be just but on the ground of consistency of procedure. He said that it would be objectionable if the tribunals had the power to raise these standard rents but had not the power to raise all standard rents. His argument is that we should not deal with this matter piecemeal. In putting forward that answer he has shown himself consistent only in his inconsistency. He has advanced that argument at a time when he is carrying through this House a piecemeal Measure.
The right hon. Gentleman objects to our proposal which he describes as piecemeal, but the only contribution he has so far made to rent legislation during this Parliament has been of a piecemeal character, namely, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946. He is now proposing a further piecemeal amendment of the law. In view of that, I hardly think it lies well with him to object to a proposal from this side of the Committee, which I do not believe he disputes

to be generaly in accordance with justice, because it is of a piecemeal character.
The right hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues on the Government Bench who have been associated with his Ministry during this Parliament have put forward two reasons why it was not possible to deal with this problem in a larger way. One was that there was no time in this Parliament, but that was not the reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman this evening. He put forward the reason that until there was a free market in houses, until we could find a sufficiency of willing buyers and willing sellers, it would be impossible to bring in general legislation dealing with standard rents. I feel we should know where the right hon. Gentleman stands. Is he prepared to justify dealing with this matter in a piecemeal manner? If so, what is his real ground for resisting the Amendment put forward from this side of the Committee? If he is going to take the line that the matter should not be dealt with piecemeal, I suggest that that is a fundamental objection to this Bill just as it was to the Act of 1946.
We should have some further answer from the right hon. Gentleman before the Committee leaves this Amendment because he has certainly not satisfied me on the point. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to deal with the point I have raised I shall be happy to resume my seat, but I urge him to deal with it because it seems to me that he has been inconsistent; on the one hand, he is proposing something piecemeal and, on the other, he is objecting to something piecemeal. Will the right hon. Gentleman please deal with that point?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think it will be agreed on all sides that if this Amendment were accepted there would not be a great number of cases, comparatively speaking, in which these powers would have to be invoked. On the other hand, it is admitted on all sides and was explicitly admitted by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), with his very wide experience of these matters, that there are cases in which lettings were made below what would normally be considered a reasonable rent. Of course, there are a certain number of these cases in the peculiar circumstances of war, not only for the reasons given but also because, paradoxically enough, in time of


war people are less inclined to act on a purely selfish consideration than perhaps they do at other times. For that reason, amongst others, there were these various lettings of premises below what would be called a reasonable rent.
The question which the Committee now has to consider is whether in the circumstances of this Bill there should be an opportunity for tribunals acting judicially to take these rents into account, to review them, and if they are unreasonably low through these or other circumstances to raise them. That is the position which the Committee has to consider. It is contended by the Minister and the hon. Member for West Leicester that this would be an illogical and inappropriate thing to do, in as much as the principle of rent restriction laws is to fix a ceiling standard rent. It is contended that it would be illogical to allow the principle of a raising of that rent in however few or exceptional cases. The standard rent which is dealt with in this Clause and in this Bill is not quite the same standard rent as we have become accustomed to in a long experience of rent restriction laws.
The ordinary standard rent is, of course, arbitrarily fixed by what happened to be the rent at a fixed point of time. No element of reasonableness entered as a criterion into the fixing of rents under that law in this country until the 1946 Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. The standard rent which is contemplated in this Clause is a standard rent in which reasonableness is taken into account. That seems to me to dispose, so far as these exceptional cases are concerned, of the argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester and the Minister that because a standard rent is to be fixed there must be no question of increasing a rent even in these few and exceptional cases.
6.0 p.m.
The other argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester was that a prudent and prescient landlord would not have got himself into this position because—if I understood his argument aright—the prudent and prescient landlord would have had regard to the proviso in Section 12 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920. It is, of course, true—I concede this to the hon. Member for West Leicester—that if a progressive rent had been fixed by the landlord in these circumstances

he would have obtained the benefit of it under the proviso of the 1920 Act. But in how many cases is it to be assumed that a landlord acting in the particular circumstances with which we are here concerned—that is to say, a landlord acting in the circumstances of war—and making a letting at an unreasonable and, perhaps, quixotically low rent for various reasons, would have knowledge of the 1920 Act or, if he had such knowledge, that he would have put that knowledge into effect? With great respect to the hon. Member for West Leicester, who has had temporarily to leave the Chamber, as he explained to me he would have to do, it seems to me that that argument savours of a technical argument unsuited to this particular position.
I do suggest that, even though these cases may be exceptional, once we admit the reasonableness as the criterion, once we give to a tribunal functioning judicially the duty to assess rents in regard to reasonableness, it is very difficult to resist this Amendment to cover those exceptional cases which otherwise may be provocative of hardship. The Act relating to furnished houses—I do not want to go in detail into it—does contemplate the possibility, in cases of change of circumstances, of some such procedure as this. The Minister suggested, in answer to me, that this change of circumstances is statutorily limited to an increase in the cost of services. Of course, that is not so, because the subsection to which I was referring is not the same as that which specifically allows, on a first reference, for an increase for these reasons.
So I think that in equity and by precedent and in justice it would be right for the Committee to accept this Amendment, realising that in so doing it is not in any sense opening the gate to a flood of applications for an increase of rent, but merely giving powers for the tribunal, in the exercise of judicial discretion, if it deems it right, to bring relief to these comparatively few and exceptional cases of hardship, which must otherwise go unredressed.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I want to intervene only for a moment or two to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he will not be a party to this proposal to inflict what may be great injustice upon a large number


of small property holders in our cities and towns. In the City of Birmingham we had a very rough time during the air raids. I think that more than 110,000 houses were damaged or destroyed. A great number of people were displaced from their homes, and had to find shelter one way or another. The property owners of Birmingham, particularly the small property owners, were generous and considerate in assisting in finding accommodation for those people who had thus been displaced by the ravages of war. If it be the fact that people who gave their property at that time to enable other people to obtain shelter after the terrible experiences we had during the air raids cannot obtain now reasonable rents for their property, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing a possibility of great hardship upon a great many very poor people.
In Birmingham, as in most other big communities of the country, the savings of people have been very largely employed in investment in houses, and these people are now, when the rents are lower than what would be called reasonable, are deprived of the opportunity of having reasonable rents paid to them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, whose sympathy, as he often says—and, I believe, sincerely—is with the poorest of our people, would not like to see a large number of people, owners of small house property, deprived of the opportunity of obtaining reasonable rents when they have done valuable services towards housing in the past. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), particularly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), and I hope very much that, in order that justice may be done and that wisdom may prevail, what we are asking shall be conceded, and that is, that in the exercise of its functions the tribunal may fix reasonable rents.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I want only to ask the Minister to explain one point that is not at all clear to me. He admits that the landlord should have the right to go to the tribunal in order, as he says, to clear up doubt as to what the real value of the house should be. What is the logic of allowing a matter to go to a tribunal, and giving the tribunal the

right to clear up doubt and assess what the correct rental should be, if the landlord, having gone to that trouble, is not allowed to adjust the rent in line with the decision?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It does seem to me that this is a most extraordinary position in which the Committee is today—that what is admitted by all to be a reasonable demand is not conceded because the Minister thinks that it will form a breach of a convenient precedent. That is the contention. The only contention upon which it was defended was that rents should in no circumstances be increased until there is an ample supply of houses. That was the Minister's broad, general contention. There is one large landlord that is at liberty to increase rents and who is increasing rents, and increasing rents daily, and that is the local authority landlord.

Mr. Piratin: Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman support my Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, the Parliamentary group of the Communist Party is now taking a logical point which will, no doubt, receive support from the Socialist Party, that this is an anomaly—which it is, indeed—and should be stopped. We listened with interest to find on what point the complacence of Members of the Parliamentary group of the Communist Party will cease. But the first point, the general contention that rents should not be increased, is invalid because rents are being increased today. The next point is that there are cases—the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) brought forward cases—where people have had to suffer the strain of evacuation and let property, small property, at rents which do not even cover the mortgage upon them. That is agreed.
The next point is that it is not the suggestion that the landlord, the owner of property, should have a right of any kind to a free hand here. He can make good only in so far as he satisfies the tribunal, to whose reasonableness the Minister constantly makes appeal. That is agreed. In spite of all that the Minister says he will allow only a one-way traffic here, so that it is not possible to permit adjustment upward, not of the standard rent, but of a rent upwards to the standard


rent. [Interruption.] I want to get this clear, for there is doubt in the minds of the Committee on this point, as to whether somebody going before the tribunal with a rent which has been fixed previously at a level unreasonably low would be able to have the rent increased.

Mr. Bevan: The situation is quite clear. The standard rent is determined by existing enactments. The standard rent is the first charged. With that we have nothing at all to do. As the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) pointed out, the landlord can charge what he likes for the first letting. What he charges is the standard rent to which reference is made. The tribunal then, if a reference is made to the tribunal, can determine what, in its opinion, is a reasonable rent, and if the reasonable rent is lower than the standard rent, the new rent becomes the standard rent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but the Minister makes this a one-way traffic.

Mr. Bevan: Of course.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister says "Of course." I am really disquieted at the mood of the Committee this afternoon. I have received sheafs of letters, and hon. Members must have had many letters. [Interruption.] I think that a great number of Members have had letters and that Members on that side of the House have had letters. The hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) had letters, and he brought one of these cases before the Committee. I am sure that he is not alone in that. Many a poor person has let property for one reason or another, the rent of which was quite out of proportion to neighbouring rents and to the rents which could have been exacted. He has no redress in any circumstances. Not even in the discretion of the tribunal is it possible to make any adjustment. These people are looking to this House for justice, and the position has been greatly aggravated by the acceptance of the Minister of an Amendment taking one back to 1939. I have a heavy responsibility in this matter, and the Minister has a heavy responsibility.
I was at the Ministry of Health in 1939, and I had to organise a great transfer of work and of civil servants to other parts of the country. Many of those civil

servants suffered great hardship in having to leave their houses. The Minister is wholly responsible for our great Civil Service in the Ministry over which he presides. He will find that if he looks into the records of his own Department there are many hard cases of exactly the type that we are bringing before the House this evening. It is no figment of the imagination to say that a willing seller and a willing buyer did not exist in the reception areas. It is also true to say that a willing seller and a willing buyer did not exist in the evacuation areas, when, under compulsion a man was transferred to Blackpool or to Colwyn Bay in connection with the evacuation of the vast service of the Ministry of Health which I had to order and carry out. These people were under grave hardship in that the State could order a man to move.
That a man should have to let his property at an abnormal rent, and that then the State should say, "I shall never under any circumstances allow you even to plead your case before a tribunal to enable that rent to be restored," is a piece of gross injustice which I would never believe this Committee would have undertaken. We feel that the Committee is refusing justice to a class of person who had every reason to look to it for justice. It is refusing it under a pretext which is flimsy, and we say that this is not the way in which the Imperial Parliament ought to conduct its affairs. We protest most emphatically not only against the Debate this afternoon, but against the attitude of many hon. Members opposite towards a case which affects ordinary folk, and to which they should have devoted far more serious attention than they have done during this discussion.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has added nothing new to the discussion at all. All that he has done is to repeat what was said before. He has repeated it with more warmth but has not added any single new argument to what has been advanced, and has not replied to what I said at the very beginning of my remarks. It is inconsistent, I say, with the purposes of this Bill that one should make what amounts to a major inroad in the Rent Restrictions Acts, which is what the Opposition are asking for at the present time.

Commander Galbraith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is doing that very


thing in this Bill. He is altering the standard of rent, and he is altering it downwards. Why should he not alter it upwards?

Mr. Bevan: I thought myself that it was universally accepted on the Second Reading that hardship existed, and that landlords were exploiting the housing situation, especially in the big cities; that they had charged exorbitant rentals for premises let for the first time, and not only charged exhorbitant rentals but had exacted outrageous premiums. In my guilelessness and lack of sophistication I assumed that would arouse universal indignation. So far, the hottest speeches which have come from the Opposition Benches have been the speeches made on behalf not of the general victims but of a few landlords who might also be victims.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: May I be permitted to finish what I have to say. One cannot hold the sequence of an argument if one is interrupted all the while. Hon. Members opposite ought to economise their emotions and ought to allow their emotions sometimes to be exploited by something other than the hardships of property. It is amazing that during the whole of this Debate one has not heard a single word of regret from hon. Members opposite for the appalling, pitiful picture of ex-Service men being exploited by rack renters. I have been very patient so far, and hon. Members must learn to take it as well as to give it. In fact I introduced the Bill in as non-controversial a speech as I am capable of making, but, nevertheless, that has not prevented hon. Members opposite outraging public opinion in this country.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it not the position that under this Amendment we are dealing with the case in which rent is asked which can reasonably be asked by the landlord. This has nothing to do with exploitation or exhorbitant rents whatever, which are dealt with in another part of the Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with exploitation which is dealt with in another part of the Bill and is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the House.

The Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has done so with sufficient particularity to prevent his being out of Order.

Mr. Bevan: I am endeavouring to reply to the very general observations made by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who made a number of very general attacks on the Government. It has been extraordinary to listen to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's outburst this evening, and one can only assume that he is influenced to a large extent, not by the actual content of the Amendment before the House, but by considerations elsewhere.
I call the attention of hon. Members in all parts of the House to the fact that we have not had from the Opposition anything like a proper expression of consideration for the very large number of people whom this Bill seeks to protect. The Bill does not impose a new hardship. All that the Bill is doing, and all that this Clause is dealing with at the moment, is the protection of individuals who have been exploited because of the lack of housing accommodation. It is no use hon. Members protesting about it, because practically every industrial country in the world has found it necessary in the circumstances which we are facing at the present time to put, as I said earlier, an umbrella over the heads of tenants.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made several references to local authorities. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to provide accommodation; that is why they are treated differently. I would point out to him that they have always been treated differently, not only by this Government, but by every preceding Government. This is not a new situation. Local authorities have always had the right to charge increased rents in the circumstances laid down by Statute. The Rent Control Acts have always made a distinction between local authorities as landlords and private landlords. That distinction is not created by this Bill. It was there when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was Minister of Health. If it was so appalling an injustice then why were his emotions not aroused by it? Why are we having this deliberately postponed indignation from


him at the present time? Local authorities have a statutory obligation to provide accommodation, and if they are not able—

Mr. C. Williams: On a point of Order. Shall we now be able to enlarge the Debate after the Minister has finished, and discuss local authorities? I would have referred to them, but I thought I would be out of Order.

The Chairman: The question has been discussed rather widely, and I think the right hon. Gentleman must be entitled to reply to what has been said.

Mr. Bevan: I raised no point of Order when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was addressing the Committee. I am now merely pointing out that there is no analogy whatsoever between the right of local authorities in these conditions to increase their rents and the situation that he was describing, precisely because there is no statutory obligation on a private landlord to provide accommodation, and he ought not to have the statutory reliefs that the public authorities have when they have a statutory obligation to provide accommodation. I repeat that there is no justification for interfering with these standard rents upwards. This is primarily a rent relief Bill, not a landlord relief Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will be willing to come to a decision soon.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I apprehend that there is some desire that the discussion should not be unduly protracted; the Minister himself gave utterance to that desire; but he has a very odd way indeed of seeking to limit discussion. If the Minister thinks that he can come to this Committee and make provocative speeches of that sort without any reply being given he is entirely mistaken. If the Minister wishes to have a brief Debate he should address himself to this Committee in a calm and dispassionate way. I have already spoken on this Amendment, and I call the Committee to witness that when I did so I addressed myself calmly and dispassionately to the problems before us. I should not, even now, have sought to make a second speech had the Minister had the elementary courtesy, which I myself have never yet refused, to give way in order

that a relevant question should be put to him. Since he did not do so I am compelled to put the point by way of a second speech.
I am obliged to preface my observations by this general remark on the Minister's attitude to this question and the Debate generally. It is because the Minister is, as is well known, a complete failure as an administrator, it is because he has failed lamentably and abysmally to solve the housing problem in the way suggested by the Labour Party at the General Election, that he seeks relief in his skill in polemics. My observations are these. First, in regard to the general attitude of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, it is a complete and gross travesty of the facts to suggest that we are influenced only by injustice to one party as against another. We take this view: if there are injustices by some landlords to some tenants, let them be remedied; but do not let it be suggested, as the Minister would suggest, that because some landlords have caused injustice to some tenants that is a reason for doing injustice to those landlords who have themselves refrained from committing injustice upon their tenants. That is the first proposition I wish to put.
Secondly, the Minister says that acceptance of this Amendment would import an innovation into the Bill. It is, of course, true that the criterion of reasonableness in a standard rent is itself, as I pointed out in my earlier speech, an innovation in rent restriction law. Once that innovation is accepted a tribunal must be given jurisdiction to give effect to what is reasonable in all cases.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: In all cases?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In all cases within the ambit of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member does himself less than justice when he makes that sedentary observation.
Finally, let me say this, because it is in my submission highly relevant. The Minister has just given to the Committee one of his better examples of that synthetic indignation which is his principal attribute as a Minister of State and Member of this House. However, I want to ask him a question when he has finished entertaining his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am putting this


question directly to him, and that is why I ask for his attention. The Minister made great play with the wrongs that have been committed, in his view, since 1945. This is now 1949, and I want to ask him: if these things are so, if his heart has been so harrowed, as he says, by the injustices perpetrated over this long period, why is it that he has waited so long before introducing this Bill? The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said this afternoon that he has been urging it for three and a half years. Others have been aware of this problem. Why is it that the Minister has been so false to the dictates of what he now says are his own emotions as to deny the Committee the opportunity of considering this legislation, and to deny to all these tenants, for whom he now pretends this sympathy, all practical help and relief for a period of three and a half years?
The Minister has made a speech not directed to this Amendment. He has made a speech in the hope of arousing feeling and indignation in the country. If that is what he seeks to do I warn him of this: his conduct in this matter, his delay, and his change of front, are all matters which the electorate are entitled to take into consideration; and they are matters of which the electorate will be informed in a way in which they will understand the right hon. Gentleman's true motives.

6.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling: It had not been my intention to speak on this matter, but when I heard the Minister and the argument he used to support his case I felt impelled to make it clear that we are in full disagreement with him. His speech seems to arise out of the fact that he is conscious that His Majesty's Government's housing programme has failed, and that the statutory undertakers under his directions have also failed, and that therefore he must rely on free enterprise and private landlords.

The Chairman: We have had speeches that have been rather wide of the mark, but the hon. Member is now going too far. He has not addressed one word to the Amendment, and appears to be about to make a general attack on the right hon. Gentleman's housing policy which will not be in Order.

Sir W. Darling: The Amendment before the Committee is an Amendment to the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill, which the Minister said a few moments ago was not really a landlord and tenant rent control Bill but a rent relief Bill; a rent control Bill not for the relief of the landlords, but for the relief of the tenants. Those were his exact words, and as you approved them, Major Milner, they must have been quite relevant. This Amendment seeks to widen the scope of the Bill and to give the right to landlords and tenants to reconsider the terms of their engagements. There is admittedly a great injustice to tenants—the circumstances inevitably provoke that—but there is also—and the Committee have heard sufficient examples—an injustice, which may be small and occasional, to landlords. It is not unreasonable—and the Amendment seeks to establish it—that landlords who believe themselves to be aggrieved and treated inequitably shall have a right to go before a tribunal and state their case. If they have no case they will be dismissed out of hand, probably with contumely, but if they have a case, is it the desire of the Government that they shall be treated inequitably as a result of this Bill?

Mr. Tiffany: Which Bill?

Sir W. Darling: The curiosity of the hon. Member cannot be satisfied by me, but perhaps one of his pundits, with the limited knowledge at his disposal, will give him the answer he wants.
This is a tribunal set up for the purpose of dealing with inequities, such as the ex-Service man who is paying too high a rent. But there are other grievances, admittedly limited in scope, that, in fairness, the Minister might agree to come before the tribunal. If they prove to be unwarrantable they will be dismissed, and public contumely will fall on those who seek to exploit the letting of houses. What is the objection to a properly constituted tribunal, familiar with the circumstances and familiar with unfair as well as fair rents, dealing with an admitted grievance?
I come from a city which was an evacuation centre. Owing to enemy action large sections of the population evacuated, and others were compelled to evacuate to do work of public interest elsewhere. Many owners offered their


houses in the national emergency, either for peppercorn rents or for nominal rents. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) present, because he may be aware of circumstances that occurred in the City of Edinburgh. Is it just that these persons who have disposed of their accommodation at nominal rents should now be denied the use of their premises?

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member says that a peppercorn or nominal rent was charged. Does he realise that it is not a standard rent if the rent happens to be below a certain proportion of the rateable value?

Sir W. Darling: I realise that perfectly. I will give the hon. Member an exact example. A constituent of mine gave her house for a nominal sum of £5 a year.

Mr. Janner: That is not a standard rent.

Sir W. Darling: She cannot get occupation of that house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] She cannot, except by a very disagreeable process. As he happens to be an ex-Service man she is not in a position to give effect to her desires. It is that kind of case, admittedly rare, with which the Amendment seeks to deal. I see no reason why, if I had given my house at a nominal rent to some one, I cannot, five years after the event, go to a public tribunal and ask whether it is fair to charge an additional rent. That is all the Amendment seeks to do. I am sure the Minister, on reflection, cannot resist giving the tribunal the fullest opportunity to review all rents. There is no need for great emotion in this matter. We are pressing that these cases should be submitted to a public tribunal and be properly investigated, and the Minister will be well advised, either now or at some later stage, to give these facilities because public opinion is behind us and public convenience will be met.

Mr. C. Williams: I should not have dreamt of intervening except for the fact that the Minister made a speech which could hardly be called conciliatory even by the Home Secretary. I interrupted the Minister on one occasion, and I thanked him for having given way. I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that local authorities have the power to add enormously to their rents, and the Minister pointed out quite rightly

that local authorities are under a statutory obligation. It is quite right that the local authorities have an obligation. We all recognise that, and no one has disputed it, although we think they use their powers hardly and wrongly. But there is a danger that others will swallow this obligation. There are other bodies—

The Chairman: I do not think we can go on to discuss other bodies; indeed the question of local authorities is strictly beyond the purview of this discussion. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) raised the point and I allowed the Minister to reply, but I hope we shall not pursue the question any further.

Mr. Williams: I certainly shall not enlarge on such bodies as the National Coal Board. I very much regret that I cannot apparently go further into the matter of the local authorities because the Minister opened it very widely. I regret that I cannot answer him fully on that point; it would be very easy to do so. The Minister remarked, that some of us have not thought it necessary to refer to all the hard cases in our constituencies. I could have given him cases where the attitude he is adopting will reflect very unfairly on ex-Service men and on men who gave up their houses in the war. I did not think it was necessary to do so for the very simple reason that the Minister has shown himself in this case, as he has so often shown himself before, not only an appallingly incompetent administrator but absolutely unfair when it comes to any matter of justice. He should really not say on any occasion that he wants to be fair; it is so remote from his character and that of most of those who sit with him.

Amendment negatived.*

The Chairman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) desire to move the Amendment in page 2, to leave out lines 10 to 12.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As it is very desirable that we should make progress with the Bill, although we have arguments which we should like to address to the Committee, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

* See Column 1148.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "made," and to insert "granted."
This may sound a very insignificant point on a matter of terminology, but it is a very serious matter. The paragraph beginning in line 10 is a proviso which is aimed at preventing more than one application being made to the tribunal in respect of a house. On the surface that sounds very nice, but I shall show the Committee where this might lend itself to some injustice which I do not believe is intended. I believe it to be a small oversight which can be corrected by a change of words.
A tenant may make application to a tribunal for a rent to be determined. The tenant must be able to show that the house in which he lives was let for the first time since August, 1945. If his evidence on this is ineffective or not accepted by the tribunal, the application falls to the ground. However, it may happen that three or six months later the tenant comes across evidence which was not presented on the first occasion and which might make the tribunal change its point of view and determine the rent in the light of the circumstances laid down in the Bill. Yet, owing to this proviso, such a tenant may not make the application.
Here is a further example. A tenant may make an application and he may not be able to provide sufficient evidence to the effect that the landlord has let the house for the first time since 1945. That tenant moves out and in moves a new tenant who later finds evidence to that effect. The new tenant, who did not make the first application—the application applies to the house and not the tenant —may not apply under this proviso. I therefore put forward this simple Amendment the effect of which will be that only where the tribunal has gone fully into the matter and decided a reasonable rent, the tenant or a subsequent tenant may not again apply—in plain language, may not make himself a nuisance. I believe the Minister will see the value of this in ensuring the utmost justice.

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I agree with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that the Amendment raises a point in the Bill, but where he

is getting rather confused is that any difficulty as to whether or not the tenant is covered by the Acts is one that he should raise in the county court and not with the tribunal. It would be very wrong to accept the view that second applications should be made to the tribunal whether the tribunal decides to issue a new reasonable rent or not. This is asking the tribunal to undertake duties which it is quite unreasonable to expect them to do. A similar matter is raised in an Opposition Amendment. We believe that we can dispense even handed justice, and I assure the Opposition as well as the hon. Member that we regret that we cannot ask the Committee to accept the Amendment because it is asking the rent tribunal to do something which is more properly the job of the county court.

Mr. Piratin: I am very dissatisfied with that reply. The hon. Member has not really dealt with the point. The purport of what I attempted to say was that where new circumstances develop which were not known in the first place, the applicants or the potential applicants should have a right to submit the case again to the tribunal and that this proviso prevented that being done. I do not construe the Opposition Amendment as a similar one. The Opposition Amendment is completely to delete the proviso, but I am in favour of the proviso provided that it does not create any injustice to a potential applicant in stopping him from getting a determined rent from the tribunal in circumstances where he can submit his case with full effect. I again ask if the matter can be looked into.

Mr. Bevan: We have looked at this very carefully but can see no justification at all for the making of a second application. In the first place, if it be a question whether the tribunal has the right to arbitrate, that, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, is a matter for the courts to consider. People could say that the tribunal had gone outside its statutory rights—

Mr. S. Silverman: As to the county court—

Mr. Bevan: We are not talking about the county court for the moment. An application can always be made to the High Court as was made in a certain


case under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act when the tribunal had no locus to decide a certain matter.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is that new circumstances may come to light and therefore the applicant should have a second chance; but there must be some justice for the owner of the house. He must be determined at some time or another. We cannot have a thing hanging over him all the while. It is up to the applicant in the first instance to inform himself as far as he can about the facts, and having had his opportunity to state those facts to the tribunal, he ought not to be allowed a second bite. If he is, it means that the landlord has a second exposure.

Mr. Piratin: On common grounds so far the Minister has a reasonable point, but would he answer my earlier one about an entirely new tenant coming into the place, and giving him a chance?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly not. What is being determined is the position of the property, not the position of a tenant. It is the actual relationship of the property to the Act, not the tenant. If every new tenant coming into the house was furnished by the Act with the power to challenge the status of the house, no certainty would be reached. It would be a cat and mouse game. The landlord would never know what his property ought to fetch. Therefore it seems to me that the hon. Member who has pushed the door open a few inches is not only trying to push the door off the hinges, but to push the house down. We have gone as far as possible in the circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has been less than fair to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). I understood the hon. Member to say that where the tribunal had once made a determination, he did not desire the right for a second application to be made. So all that part of the speech of my right hon. Friend was, with all respect to him, beside the point.

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: I thought so, because as I have said, the hon. Member for Mile End conceded that where the tribunal had made a determination, that should be the end of the matter.

Mr. Bevan: The point is irrelevant. If the application is made to the tribunal, the duty is then imposed on the tribunal to make a decision.

Mr. Silverman: I thought my hon. Friend was dealing with only one limited case—the case where the tribunal, when the application was made, was not satisfied that this really was a house to which the Act applied, where it was essential to prove that the letting really was subsequent to 1st September, 1939. That is not a question of law to be determined by the High Court or county court, it is a question of fact. All that my hon. Friend was suggesting was that where such an application was refused by the tribunal, not on the merits but merely on the question of jurisdiction, there ought to be the possibility of a second application as soon as he could discharge the onus, which lies upon him, of showing that the house was one to which the Act applied. If my right hon. Friend is saying that in such case there is already a remedy in the general law in the courts, then I take it that my hon. Friend will be satisfied. However, I do not find such a remedy here, and I am not sure that Section 17 of the principal Act, which deals with questions of jurisdiction in the county court, would apply to such a case as the hon. Member for Mile End had in mind.

Mr. Bevan: I would not say that that Section dealt with it, but it is perfectly clear that the principal Acts have to be construed as to whether or not a certain matter lies within the jurisdiction of a tribunal, read in conjunction with this Bill when it becomes an Act. If it be not the case, we will look at it again, but that is as I understand it.

Amendment negatived.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "if."
We have already debated this Amendment but, before you put the Question, Major Milner, I want to say that in view of the unreasonable, illogical attitude which the Minister has taken up, we shall have to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, "That 'if' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 97.

Division No.53.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m. 


Albu, A. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Murray, J. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Grey, C. F
Nally, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Grierson, E.
Naylor, T. E.


Attewell, H. C
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
O'Brien, T.


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Oldfield, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Guest, Dr L. Haden
Oliver, G. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gunter, R. J.
Paget, R. T.


Baird, J.
Guy, W. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Balfour, A
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Barstow, P. G
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Palmer, A. M. F.


Barton, C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Pargiter, G. A


Battley, J. R.
Harrison, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, Mrs. F.(Rushcliffe)


Benson, G.
Haworth, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Beswick, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Pearl, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Piratin, P.


Binns, J.
Holman, P.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Blackburn, A. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Horabin, T. L.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Boardman, H.
Hoy, j.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L 'pl Exch' ge)
Hubbard, T.
Proctor, W. T.


Bramall, E. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.
Pryde, D. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, H. D. (W 'lverh' pton, W.)
Randall, H. E.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hutchinson, H. L.(Rusholme)
Ranger, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Rankin, J


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Reeves, J.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Carmichael, James
Johnston, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (plaistow)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Chater, D.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Chetwynd, G. R
Keenan, W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cobb, F. A.
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Scollan, T.


Collindridge, F.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Segal, Dr. S


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Granville


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kirby, B. V.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Cooper, G. 
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Corlett, Dr. J
Lang, G.
Shurmer, P.


Cove, W. G.
Lavers, S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cullen, Miss
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Daggar. G.
Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J


Daines, P.
Leslie j. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Levy, B. w.
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. w.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyne, A. W.
Sorenson, R. W.


Deer, G.
McAdam, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, J.
McAllister, G.
Stamford, W


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Dodds, N. N.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)


Donovan, T.
Mack, J. D.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mckay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Stubbs, A. E


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. 
Mckinlay A. S.
Swingler, S.


Edelman, M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fairhurst, F.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tiffany, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M (Istington, E.)
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Timmons, J


Follick, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Titterington, M. F


Foot, M M.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.


Forman, J. C.
Medland, H. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuel, M.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R.
Usborne, Henry


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Monslow, W
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Moody, A S.
Walkden, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, G. H.


Gilzean, A
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)







Warbey, W N
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wise, Major F. J


Watson, W. M.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilkes, L.
Woods, G. S


Weitzman, D.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V F


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Young, Sir R (Newton)


Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


West, D. G.
Williams, W. R.(Heston)



Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)
Willis, E
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Richard Adams




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Howard, Hon. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark Edin gh, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Baldwin, A. E,
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Keeling, E. H
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bossom, A. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Langford-Holt, J
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.
Lipson, D. L.
Scott, Lord W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P.(I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MaFarlane, C. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


De la Bère, R.
MacLeod, J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wadsworth, G.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Waiter
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Loro


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nicholson, G.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from first "the," to "be," and to insert:
seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.
If convenient, Mr. Bowles, I propose to deal at the same time with similar Amendments in page 2, line 26, and in Clause 3, page 5, line 20. All three Amendments concern the same principle.

The Deputy-Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Piratin: The Rent Acts which preceded the outbreak of war gave a tenant right to reclaim excess of rent where the rent had been determined at lower than that which he had been paying. The Bill which is before us does not provide for this right to tenants who are affected by its terms. The Amendments, therefore, are designed to introduce a date from which such rent can be made recoverable. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 states that
the rent so determined"— 

by a tribunal—
… shall as from the date of the tribunal's determination be the standard rent …
Clause 3 (1) deals with the same principle in connection with apportioned dwellings.
The intention behind these Amendments is, first, to make all excess rent recoverable and, second, to lay down a period during which they are recoverable. In the first case, where a tribunal determines a lower rent than that which is being paid to be the standard rent, there is an implied overcharge. The tribunal is directed as to certain grounds upon which they determine the rent as being a reasonable one. Hence, if the rent has been higher, it must have been unreasonable. If it has been unreasonable, it might even have been extortionate.
I want to deal with the question of precedents. The experts amongst us have been somewhat modest of estimating their ability but any hon. Member who is even slightly knowledgeable with the Rent Acts


will know that, as those Acts at present stand, a tenant may recover excess rent for a period of up to two years. I shall deal with the matter of precedents particularly in the light of the claim from the Opposition that no precedent existed for certain other things which the Minister intended to do. The 1920 Act did not stipulate any time limit for the recovery of rent. Section 14 made that quite clear. Section 8 (2) of the 1923 Act, restricted the period to six months. The 1938 Act, in Section 7 (6), extended the period to two years, which is really the present position. The 1939 Act, which applied to what are known as new control houses, in its First Schedule applied Section 14 of the 1920 Act as from September, 1939, the date upon which that Act came into operation. As that Act was, in fact, passed through Parliament very quickly, that date was equivalent almost to the date of the printing of the Act. Therefore, in the case of new control houses, under the 1939 Act tenants may recover rent for up to a period of two years, but not prior to September, 1939.
Let me refer also to furnished lettings. I raised this matter on Second Reading, when I hoped that the Minister would clear it up, because there happened to be some difference of opinion amongst lawyers. Having referred in more detail to the Rent Acts, however, I find that, in the case of old controlled houses, furnished lettings are dealt with in Section 9 of the 1920 Act, which means that application must be made in court and that, as a result, excess rent can be reclaimed for a period of up to two years. The first Schedule of the 1939 Act applied this principle similarly to new control houses.
The precedent, therefore, goes back for a full generation. Almost all these Acts were introduced by Tory Governments. In them is laid down this principle of the recovery of rent, for a period, at one time, of no limitation and, latterly, of up to two years. The point I am making develops from these precedents. If this Bill is passed in this form, excess of rent will not be recoverable and I think it should be recoverable. I should like the Minister to give this matter his attention.
I am asking that it should be recoverable from the date of the printing of

the Bill. If the Bill receives the Royal Assent in June, as it may, and an application is made say in July, or August, it is not unreasonable to say that such a tenant living in a house for seven years may recover rent for seven months back to December, 1948. The reason why I ask that it should be 17th December is because that was the date of the printing of the Bill and every landlord would have an opportunity of seeing the proposed provisions. If he was keen on ensuring that he was only charging a reasonable rent be would have an opportunity of reducing the rent before the case was brought to the tribunal. The main point is that excess of rent should be made recoverable. This is a just matter and I think the Minister will agree that there are ample precedents for it.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has got himself into a slight difficulty by using the same word to cover two different things. He has talked about excess rent, but, if my recollection serves me correctly, an excess rent is a rent over and above the rent which can legally be charged. No one knows what rent could be legally charged in this connection, so the use of the term is wholly inapplicable. It would be profoundly unfair to a landlord in such circumstances because he does not know what view the tribunal would take of what would be a reasonable rent. All the Statutes to which the hon. Member referred are entirely irrelevant in this regard. It would be inequitable to make retrospective to a date in December a decision fixing an amount which the landlord would have to declare himself in deciding.
There is a further objection. If the Amendment were accepted it would make nonsense of one part of the Bill because rents for new lettings can be decided after the passing of the Act and, obviously, as they did not exist before 17th December, they could not be made retrospective to that date. I admit that that is merely a technical detail of drafting and if the principle of the Amendment were accepted I should not resist it on that ground, but would put it in Order. But I must resist the Amendment as wholly inapplicable to the purposes of the Bill and because it would inflict a very considerable injustice on landlords.

Amendment negatived.

7.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are a large number of Amendments to line 34, all asking that the tribunals should refer to various aspects in coming to their conclusions. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if a general Debate took place on them altogether, if that is desired. If that meets with the convenience of the Committee, they can be discussed together with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
having regard to the standard rents of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood to which the principal Acts apply.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give a small measure of guidance to the tribunals as to what would be a reasonable rent. I believe it necessary to give some guidance to tribunals which sit in different parts of the country and which are composed differently and may have different views of what is reasonable. They will take different factors into consideration and those factors must be viewed by them according to the circumstances. It may be that the Minister will give some guidance to them and I shall be glad to hear if that is his intention, but I think it should be implicitly stated in the Bill. I draw the attention of the Minister to the precedent in the 1933 Act which says in Section 6:
in any proceedings in which the standard rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is required to be determined, the court shall have power to determine … the standard rent as being … of such amount as the court thinks proper having regard to the standard rents of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood …
That applies to courts and not to tribunals, but the principle has been established in the 1933 Act in which there has been regard to this Section when a decision has been given in a court. In view of the need of guidance and of the precedent, I have introduced this Amendment. I believe it is the Minister's aim to bring higher rents nearer to those of houses controlled by the 1939 Act, and the Amendment would give guidance to the tribunal to take into consideration rents of controlled houses in the neighbourhood. I believe the Amendment would fit in with the object the Minister has set himself in bringing down other

rents nearer to the controlled rents already existing.

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if at this stage I state the attitude I have to Amendments which have this purpose and a number of similar purposes. My general attitude is that it is undesirable to put into the Bill directions as to what the tribunal should take into account. I am quite convinced, and I think hon. Members with legal experience will agree, that no more fertile ground for litigation could be devised than that of giving precise instructions to tribunals as to what they should have regard to. There is also the difficulty that if certain categories of costs to which they should have regard are defined, the assumption always is that others which have not been defined should not be taken into account.
Therefore, the language that has been used in the Bill asks the tribunals to take into consideration all the conditions which are reasonable to enable them to reach a proper conclusion in guiding them to their decision. If it were intended that the tribunals should have regard to the standard rents of all controlled houses, it would be manifestly unfair because the tribunals would be mainly considering houses let for the first time, converted under extraordinary conditions involving considerable expenditure. Surely, therefore, they cannot be asked to have regard to pre-war rent-controlled houses, which would be utterly irrelevant to what would be the reasonable rent for the actual letting.
To have regard to the rents of other newly-let dwellings would be a work of supererogation. That is the very matter they would have to determine, and as I see it they obviously could not take into account the rents of houses let for the first time which had not been the subject of the tribunal's decision. I say that because, not having been the subject of a decision by the tribunal, such rents might be inordinately high. Therefore, to take those lettings into account would have the opposite effect to that which I feel sure the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) intends.

Mr. Piratin: The Amendment is quite specific. It says that regard shall be had to
similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood to which the principal Acts apply.


The last Act was that of 1939, which was responsible for new controlled houses. I have that particularly in mind.

Mr. Bevan: That does not help the situation at all. The tribunal surely cannot be asked to fix the rent for new lettings made under modern conditions by reference to the rents charged for controlled houses in 1939. Such a decision would be ruinous. It should be remembered that we are considering very largely lettings made as a consequence of conversion or adaptation. We are dealing with conversions made under contemporary conditions. It would be wholly unjust for the rents of those lettings to be related to houses let under wholly different conditions before the war.
Therefore, my main argument still applies, namely, that the tribunal cannot be asked to have regard to other rent-controlled houses in the neighbourhood. The main criterion as to the reasonable rent of a newly-provided house must be the cost of its provision. Because of the increased building costs since the war, it must be expected that these rents will be higher than the rents of controlled houses.

Mr. Molson: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there is in the Bill the condition "having regard to all the conditions"?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see that regard has to be had to all conditions surrounding the letting. That is why, when we come to a subsequent Amendment which seeks to take into account the capital value—I do not want to anticipate the Debate if debate is to take place; I do not want to appear to have reached a decision before the Debate has taken place—I cannot, it seems to me at this stage, accept that Amendment, for two reasons. One reason is because the value of the house is surely a matter which ought not to be taken into account. What is the value? Is it the value of the house with vacant possession when prices are soaring upwards? Is it the value of a house having regard to the rent being paid for it, because that is what the tribunal itself will wish to fix? Is it the cost of the house to the person who has made the adaptation and let it? That is a reasonable matter to be

taken into account, but we have not put that into the Bill for the reason which I have given—that it is not the only fact to be taken into account by the tribunal. It is to take into account all the surrounding conditions. I believe that it would lead to less litigation and more justice to all concerned if the tribunal itself were permitted to have regard to all the relevant factors.

Mr. Gammans: After what the Minister has said, there seem to me to be two points which we on this side of the Committee must make. The first concerns whether there is or is not any need for guidance to be given to these tribunals as to the reasons which lead them to a decision. I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister has said on that point. If these tribunals were to be temporary bodies what the Minister has said would perhaps carry conviction. If they were set up for a limited purpose what the Minister said would perhaps be correct, but they are now permanent bodies. It is all the more necessary for them to be given some guidance because they are really competent to hear only one side of the case. The danger is that there may be far too much variation in the views of tribunals, due perhaps to lack of experience, or it may be, ignorance or even prejudice.
The point which we on this side of the Committee make is that if the judgments of these tribunals are to carry conviction, if they are to be accepted as strictly impartial, they need some guidance as to principles on which they should operate. Drastic powers are now being given to these tribunals. Great protection is being given to tenants in this country. It seems to me that it is harder for a landlady to get rid of her lodger than to get rid of her husband. So long as that protection exists, it is essential that these tribunals should have more guidance than just the consideration of what in their opinion constitutes reasonableness. We on this side of the Committee have put down a number of Amendments. The Minister has referred to the first of these in page 2, line 34, at end, insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the capital value of the dwelling-house immediately before the date of the application to the tribunal:


Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of that value as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided.
The Minister admits, I take it, that the tribunal should take into account the cost of a house or the conversion of a house in assessing the rent? But there is also a following Amendment dealing with the expenditure incurred by the landlord, in page 2, line 34, at end, insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the amount of any expenditure incurred by the landlord in connection with the dwelling-house whether before or after the commencement of the tenancy:
Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of that amount as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided.
I take it that the Minister would agree that there is all the difference between a good landlord and a bad one? One man may have spent a lot of money on his house in maintaining it in a decent state of repair, and that fact should be taken into consideration by the tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: That would be reflected in the character of the accommodation provided. If the accommodation is of a superior kind, having regard to the work done on it, it would necessarily be reflected in a higher reasonable rent.

Mr. Gammans: It all depends what the Minister means by superior accommodation.

Mr. Bevan: Suppose a person who has converted property is able to disclose —I am not quite sure how this would look in law—that he had spent a lot more money on the conversion than was reasonable in the circumstances. In other words, we know that sometimes certain building contractors and certain landlords have not always reached what may be regarded as the proper conclusions as to what should be spent on a conversion. The bills might be handed in but they might represent a relationship of a most unwholesome kind between the landlord for whom the work was done and the building contractor who did the work,

and it might not necessarily be reflected in the accommodation provided.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means about this unwholesomeness. I have yet to meet the landlord who spent more on a building than was necessary.

Mr. Bevan: I can think of landlords who pretend that they have spent more than they have spent, although I hope that there are very few of them.

Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a racket between the landlord and some builder involving bogus bills. He must have been thinking of some aspect of the Health Act.

Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing me of bogus operations?

Mr. Gammans: No. It is the right hon. Gentleman who is accusing landlords of arranging bogus transactions with builders, or the possibility of such a thing happening. There are such possibilities in relation to the Health Act, which one might dilate upon on a suitable occasion. There might possibly be such an opportunity on Thursday.
The point we want to make is that due consideration should be given to the landlord who has maintained his property in a good state of repair. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that this matter is merely related to what he calls the standard of accommodation. The way in which he put his argument is like suggesting that there is only one standard price for a secondhand car. The price of a secondhand car does not merely depend on the year in which it was bought, but upon the way in which it has been kept. We want to establish exactly the same principle with regard to rents which should be paid.
The other factors which we think should be taken into consideration are the services or the special services which might be provided by a landlord. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman that particular mention was made in the Ridley Report about those landlords who provided services and who, in the opinion of the Ridley Committee, four or five years ago were probably suffering the greatest hardship because the services which they provided had gone up in price out of all recognition since the beginning


of the war. We are of the opinion that that fact ought to be taken into consideration in fixing rents.
I do not wish to dilate on this argument, but we on this side of the Committee are not convinced by the Minister's remarks just now. His point is that the tribunals need no guidance and that this omnibus word "reasonableness" is all that they need. We disagree. We think, considering that these tribunals are now permanent, considering the wide powers that they exercise, and in view of the scope of tribunals in different parts of the country for holding different views on the same sort of problem, that some greater guidance should be given to them than is specified in this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I am very anxious that there shall be no misunderstanding about this, and that it shall not be assumed that I am unreasonably resisting what might superficially be regarded as a reasonable proposition. Suppose that it is said that the tribunal shall have regard to A, B, C, D and E. We could say that in the Bill; those would be directions. Unless, however, we added other words, "and to all other reasonable conditions," which would mean the same thing as "all reasonable conditions," then we would get into serious trouble. Unless we put the other words in, which would destroy the meaning of the categories, we might have a factor which the tribunals could not take into account because they would assume that the categories which they should take into account had been exhausted by the list.

Mr. Gammons: We have not the slightest objection to including the words "and all other reasonable conditions."

Mr. Bevan: Then it makes nonsense of the Statute at once, because "and all other reasonable conditions" means exactly the same thing as if we took the categories out. Those who are accustomed to framing Bills know very well that there is no sillier way of framing a Bill than to include categories which must be taken into account and "all other reasonable conditions." We need only say "all reasonable conditions" which would assimilate the categories. I say at once that I am absolutely adamant on this question because I know -very well that if we inserted certain

categories in a Bill of this sort, we should have endless litigation of a most obstructive kind. People would go to the courts and say that the tribunal should be estopped from a decision because they did not take sufficiently into account this or that category which was included in the Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the fact that all the Amendments put down by this side of the Committee commence with the words:
Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection"?

Mr. S. Silverman: It is hardly necessary to detain the Committee very long, in view of the interruption by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). It is quite true that every one of the Amendments tabled by hon. Members opposite begins with the words "Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection." Surely, that can only mean that the words in the subsection:
the rent which is in all the circumstances reasonable
remain in full force and effect, even if the Minister should accept all the Amendments tabled by hon. Members opposite. It seems to me that the Amendments are superfluous. Either the Amendments are an attempt to define some of the circumstances which are reasonable, or they are not. I take it—and I am not disputing it at all—that those who are in favour of adding these various Amendments are only desirous that the tribunal's attention shall be specifically directed to a series of circumstances which it is reasonable that the tribunal shall take into account.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says that if one commences with the words "Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection" everything that follows is necessarily superfluous. Will he not agree that the expression "Without prejudice to the generality" and so on is very common to a great number of Acts of Parliament which have been passed in this Parliament and by this Government? Does the hon. Gentleman mean that in all cases were one finds that expression, all the words which follow are necessarily superfluous?

Mr. S. Silverman: No, I do not suggest that at all. It frequently happens in an Act of Parliament that, having stated in general terms the general principle to be applied, Parliament then comes to the conclusion that some particular aspect of that generality is so exceptionally important as to require attention to be specifically directed to it. If that were the case in these Amendments, I do not know that I would have any great quarrel with them, but I suggest that that is not so. There is not one of these Amendments which any reasonable tribunal could possibly ignore. I suppose that although the tribunal are not to be guided or limited by it, the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) must have some bearing on the question of what is a reasonable rent, although it would be wholly wrong specifically to direct their attention to it as being a matter which outweighs other reasonable circumstances.
I do not think that any tribunal in fixing the reasonable rent can possibly afford to ignore what is the standard rent generally of controlled premises of similar type in the neighbourhood. If we were to do what my hon. Friend wants and put those words into the Bill, we should be giving to that aspect of the matter an importance very much out of proportion to what it deserves, having regard to the nature of the problem that the Bill is designed to meet. That is equally true of at least one of the Amendments, which directs the attention of the tribunal to the capital value of the premises.
What could possibly be the result of that Amendment? The capital value of premises affected by the Bill is, for the moment, an inflated value. We should be saying to the tribunal, if the Amendment were accepted and if we were to treat capital value as being so much more important than a variety of other circumstances as specifically to direct the mind of the tribunal to it: "Here you have a class of house whose capital value is inflated and the rents of which are therefore unreasonably high. Because the rents are unreasonably high the tenant is asking the tribunal to reduce them. You have to take into account the fact that the rents ought to be unreasonably high." That would seem to make nonsense of the whole purpose of the Bill.
I agree that no one on the other side of the Committee is maintaining any such view, because this is only one of the Amendments that they wish to insert. If it is said, as the hon. Gentleman did say, that the effect of putting in the words "without prejudice to the generality" of the Clause is to give the circumstances we mention a disproportionate value in relation to other circumstances which are not mentioned, then we are inviting the tribunal to that extent to do the opposite of what the tribunal is set up to do. I do not mean to say that the tribunal should ignore the circumstances altogether. They are bound to take account of them, as they must do under the Clause. That is the danger—at least, I suppose it is—that my right hon. Friend had in mind when he talked about the danger of putting in some things. It is so often supposed by tribunals that, if we put some things in, it is because we deliberately intended to leave other things out. That would, of course, produce a wholly disproportionate and unbalanced result.
In view of that, my right hon. Friend would be very well advised indeed to keep the words which he has in the Bill and not seek to provide a schedule or a catalogue of circumstances. If we are to do that, we must also provide a category of what it would be wholly wrong to do. I am not arguing the merits of the matter, but what is suggested in this limited class of case is that we should not go to the ordinary courts, and not have them determined by a rigid, judicial examination of a series of facts and conditions, but that we should go to a body of reasonable men, a kind of jury for this purpose, who would be entitled—

Mr. Walker-Smith: A common jury?

Mr. Silverman: A jury which would be the same for all of us, and not a special jury chosen exclusively from landlords or tenants; not a jury chosen according to the value of the houses they themselves occupy but just a cross-section of fair-minded reasonable people of experience and knowledge of the neighbourhood, of some knowledge of how people live, how incomes are expended, of what values are and what the fluctuations of those values are expected to be. We should leave them free to look at the circumstances, as the Clause provides, and to arrive at what they consider to be a reasonable rent. From the point of


view of both sides you will get, I suggest, a very much fairer result in that way than if we seek to limit tribunals by laying down a series of considerations to which they are to have regard in excess of the consideration which they give to other factors.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson: The speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has considerably strengthened my feeling that it is necessary for some of these words to be added. It is, of course, an attractive idea that if one has reasonable men and if one remits to their charge the decision of cases, they can arrive at a reasonable decision. In all cases where the common law lays down the action of a reasonable man, it is the action of that reasonable man in certain given circumstances.
In considering what should be the reasonable rent of a house, I think it absolutely vital to make it plain that what we have in mind, and what from his speech the Minister has in mind, is that it should be a reasonable rent for the landlord to charge. What is most important is that it should not be a reasonable rent for the particular tenant to pay. As things are at the present time there is absolutely no guidance to the tribunal at all as to the angle from which it is to regard the matter. The hon. Member suggested in his speech that the circumstances of the tenant were some of the things which the tribunal should take into account.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure that I did not say so. If I said anything which might lead anyone to think that I said it, I will correct the impression at once. On the other hand, I said that the words of the Act gave sufficient protection and direction to the tribunal on taking everything into account that really matters. I would refer again to the words:
The rent … shall be an amount which is in all the circumstances reasonable on a letting of that dwelling-house.

Mr. Molson: Then I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman and I naturally willingly withdraw. I do happen to be provided with a clear case in point of where a tribunal did arrive at a decision which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree, was unjust and unreasonable. It was a case of furnished

flats, and I am particularly anxious to give the Committee the figures because this is a clear example of how important it is that the landlord shall receive a fair return upon his expenditure. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that in cases where an inflated price has been paid for a house the inflated price should not be reflected in the rent. Is that so?

Mr. Silverman: It is not quite what I meant. I was dealing with an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member himself, which directs the tribunal to take into account the capital value of the house. I said that it seemed to me that in nearly all the cases covered by the Bill that capital value must, for the moment, be an inflated value.

Mr. Molson: That matter is of the utmost importance in the particular case which I am citing for the Parliamentary Secretary to consider. I think the reason the tribunal arrived at the unreasonable rent that they did was that they did not take into account the fact that in the case of two almost identical houses one was bought in 1944 at the price of £1,900 and the other, which was converted into flats, was bought on 28th November. 1947, for £4,100. Actually what this man expended upon the property was £6,750 and he let the flats at a rent which would have brought in £836, which would have given him, over and above the outgoings of £666, a profit of £170, or rather less than 3 per cent. That is not an excessive amount. The fact that it was as low as that was because he had borrowed from the bank for the purpose of carrying out the conversion of the house.
In fact the Acton, Ealing, Hayes and Harlington tribunal, presided over by Miss Venetia Stevenson, reduced very substantially the rents in the case of three of the flats, with the result that now the total margin which he is receiving is £4 per annum on an amount at risk of £6,750. There is every likelihood that an additional tenant may go and obtain a very substantial reduction, in which case it will mean a loss to the landlord for carrying out this conversion, which obviously has been extremely beneficial in converting a house so that it will now accommodate four families instead of one. His intention now, because of this, is to sell the property again as a house.


Presumably it will again be occupied by a single family.
I have given this example because it seems to me to be an extraordinarily clear case in point. I am not familiar with the general working of these tribunals. I know that some of them work extremely satisfactorily. Others have not worked so satisfactorily. It is quite obvious that if the effect of this Bill is not to be greatly to discourage the reconditioning and conversion of houses into flats, it is important that the enterpriser should have some feeling of security. It is because we feel that this Bill in any case must undermine that feeling of security that we opposed it on Second Reading. Now that we are trying to make as good a Bill of it as we can, it would seem vitally important that directions shall be given to the tribunals so that they shall ensure that the person who does carry out work of this kind, which is a considerable help to the housing problem of the country, shall receive, not an excessive, but an adequate reward for what is done.
I have had a letter from a constituent who obtained an option on a large house in Buxton, and intended to convert it into flats; but when this Bill was published he wrote to me to ask whether he was safe in proceeding. I gave him what I thought was the right advice in the circumstances. I said it was obviously most unwise for him to proceed, with a risk of this kind if his flats came within the provisions of this Bill and therefore he should try to convert them into luxury flats so that their rateable value would be so high as to carry them outside the operation of this Bill. That is not the kind of advice which I like to give. What I wish to do is in any way possible to increase the provision of housing accommodation in Buxton.
It is in order that people of that kind shall be encouraged to go ahead with work of this sort that I think it is vital that a direction should be given to the tribunals. In a matter of this kind it is not possible to ask a tribunal just to behave as reasonable men. We cannot say what kind of life a reasonable man lives. It depends upon his profession, what the climate is, what is his age, and so on. I urge upon the Government that it is absolutely vital that some direction should be given to the tribunals.
I gladly recognise that the speech of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading and the two speeches made by the Minister, especially in his criticism of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), did indicate that the Government had in mind the kind of criteria which we have put in our Amendments. I believe, therefore, that it should be possible to devise a form of words which would avoid the dangers referred to by the Minister but which would effect the purpose we have in mind.

Sir J. Mellor: I do not think there is a great deal of difference in principle between the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and myself over the question of the fact of the expression "without prejudice to the generality" upon the following words. The difference was merely one of opinion on the importance of the substance contained in the Amendments which are being moved from this side of the Committee. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that if the Amendments were carried it would give a disproportionate importance in the eyes of the tribunal to the matters comprised in the Amendments. Our contention is that it would merely put these matters into a proper perspective.
Therefore, I suggest that it is desirable that these Amendments should be included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) touched on more than one of these, but he particularly mentioned the services supplied by the landlord. It is a matter in which I should say that I have some private interest. I feel it would be right, in support of what was said, to read to the Committee what exactly was stated by the Ridley Committee:
We agree that, if the provision of these services in accordance with the standard agreed between the landlord and the tenant involves the landlord in a greater expenditure than he had to incur before the war, he should be entitled to an increase in rent. … Tribunals should arrange to give applications of this kind a high priority.
I have read only the words in italics, which were the recommendation of the Report. If any hon. Member desires it, I should be glad to read the whole of the paragraph concerned. I would remind the Committee that this Report had unanimous support so far as this recommendation was concerned. Among the members of the Committee was the


present Minister of Works, and Mr. Buchanan, the former Minister of Pensions, so that it had very wide authority, stretching far beyond any party complexion. Therefore, I would say that at least the question of services provided by landlords and the increase in their costs since 1939 should be a matter to which the attention of tribunals should be especially directed.
With regard to the position as it will be under Subsection (4), if not amended, I would urge, in support of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), that it is not at all clear. The words are:
… the rent which is in all the circumstances reasonable on a letting of that dwelling-house on the terms and conditions … on which the dwelling-house is let to the tenant making the application.
It is not at all clear from those words that the circumstances of that tenant should not be taken into account. Some words should be introduced to make that perfectly clear, because on reading that I think a tribunal of the most reasonable possible men might conclude that the circumstances of that tenant should be taken into account.
8.0 p.m.
Therefore, I do not think it right to say as the Minister said, "This is perfectly all right. What more could one want? This gives the full latitude provided by this subsection to the tribunal to come to their conclusions having regard to all the circumstances." Surely, they should not have regard to all the circumstances. They should have regard to the circumstances of the premises and not the circumstances of the party concerned. It should make no difference at all in the eyes of the tribunal whether the landlord or the tenant happens to be rich or poor, fortunate or unfortunate. The inquiry should be related solely to the premises and not to the individuals concerned. That is a point upon which we should have a clear answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I wish to support the remarks addressed to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I have no doubt that the consequences of setting out in the Bill a whole category of circumstances to

which the tribunal should have regard would be most serious and to the detriment of the whole procedure. The consequence which invariably follows from that being done, as anyone with experience would agree, is that it tends to confuse the minds of the tribunal. To that extent, it gets in the way and operates as an obstacle to the determination of the reasonableness of the issue under consideration. A second consequence is the one stressed by my hon. Friend, and it is vital. It is that the special matters mentioned in that category receive disproportionate attention from the tribunal. All the matters referred to in these Amendments are considerations to which the tribunal will have regard under the Bill as it stands. Not one of them is excluded. The only consequence of inserting express mention of any of them will be to give that proposition a totally disproportionate emphasis.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) made the point that it was a normal requirement when reasonableness was being considered to have regard to reasonableness in given circumstances. I agree with him, but the point is that in the matters to which these tribunals have regard the given circumstances are all the circumstances. There are no circumstances which are of any relevance to the tenancy which need, or ought, to be excluded.

Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that in considering a fair rent for these premises—which, as the Minister said, attaches to the premises and not to a particular tenant—the financial condition of the tenant should be taken into account?

Mr. Irvine: If the matter under consideration is the rent which is fair, proper and reasonable for the premises, I agree that the financial condition of the tenant is prima facie an irrelevant issue and therefore should be deleted. But my submission remains when the hon. Member says that the test of reasonableness in the courts is the test of reasonableness in given circumstances, that before this tribunal the test will be one of reasonableness in all the circumstances affecting the rent of the house.
I strongly hold the view that the course of justice would be interfered with and impeded if the tribunal were required to have regard to a long series of obviously


irrelevant points which, from their mere presence in the law, they would be bound to feel were regarded by Parliament as being of special importance and perhaps of more importance than other matters in a case with which they were dealing which because of their particularity would not appear in the Act. The whole essence of the usefulness of a tribunal of this character is that it should have a considerable degree of freedom in its power to determine what is reasonable. If we have a category of matters to which the tribunal are bound to have regard, to that extent their freedom of decision is impeded.

Sir J. Mellor: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the words of Subsection (4) a tribunal could have regard to the personal circumstances of the tenant? I should like to know what view he takes on that.

Mr. Irvine: As I understand it, the wording of the Subsection would leave it open to the tribunal to have regard to the circumstances of the tenant if they regarded that as a relevant matter on the issue of what was a reasonable rent for the premises. In my judgment the tribunal should be free to determine whether that is a relevant factor.

Mr. McFarlane: I wish to commend to the Committee the Amendment which deals with rates payable in respect of dwellinghouses. Whatever assurances may have been given by the Minister, this point is particularly and peculiarly a Scottish one. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place and that we can expect from him his views on this point, which is of great importance to Scotland. No doubt the Committee will agree that the Scottish relationship of landlord and tenant is dominated by the Scottish rating system. Rates there are levied upon the owners and occupiers. The incidence may vary but broadly speaking they are levied in proportion.
I have been informed by those in Scotland who are best able to judge the effect of this Bill, that it is anticipated that it will have little effect on Scotland itself. Sub-letting is very largely prohibited in Scotland, and the categories of properties which we could reasonably expect this Bill to affect would be houses previously occupied by the owner and let

since the date of the commencement of the operation of this Bill, new houses provided by private enterprise, not by the local authorities, to let, or sub-divided and converted properties. Those are the categories of properties which this Bill would particularly affect in Scotland, and I think the Committee will agree that the most important of them is the last. The provision of new houses to let in Scotland is governed to a very limited extent by the Scottish rating system. In the latest figures which I could obtain the only one I could find of houses provided by private enterprise to be let was about 1,300, and I think that that was very largely at the licensing stage.
In this connection, it is very interesting to note that we are trying to weigh the influence of the Scottish rating system on this Bill and the relative position between Scotland and England in the provision of houses to let. Hon. Members will remember the Committee which was set up during the war, and it is interesting to note, when speaking of the period 1933–39 and of houses built by private enterprise to let—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide. I do not think that we can discuss all the differences between the rating system in Scotland and England. The hon. Gentleman has been all right up to now, but he should not go further. The Amendment asks the tribunal to have regard to the rates payable in respect of the property, and I do not think that he should go much wider than that.

Mr. McFarlane: With all due deference, Mr. Bowles, the point I was trying to drive home in my inexperienced way was that this undue influence of the Scottish rating system, as it affected the provision of houses to let—

The Deputy-Chairman: It seems to me that the whole point in respect of this Amendment is that the tribunal must have regard to the rating system. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that it must have regard to that, then he is all right, but he cannot go into a discussion as to the effect of the rating system on the provision of houses.

Mr. McFarlane: I will not pursue the matter any further. It is quite unnecessary for me to emphasise the importance


of conversions and sub-divisions, but what I do want to emphasise is the effect which the Scottish rating system has upon the provision of converted, divided and reconstructed property.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but this is not a question whether it has any effect upon the provision of houses privately, or a question of the splitting up of houses. All that this Amendment is concerned with is whether the tribunal should or should not be told specifically in this Bill to have regard to the rating system.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. Our argument is directed specifically to the point that we are opposed to a non-committal attitude to the tribunal and we favour a definition. What we fear is that, by the lack of directions given to the tribunal as to how it should work, the provision of houses may be somewhat impeded.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman was going too far.

Mr. McFarlane: I will bear that in mind, Mr. Bowles, but the point which I was trying to drive home is that which my right hon. and gallant Friend mentioned on Second Reading, when he pointed out that, in Glasgow, for example, we had 40,000 homeless families, and that—

8.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman persists, I cannot allow him to continue his speech. He must confine his remarks to the argument whether the tribunal should be specifically ordered by this Bill to have regard to the rating system and the rates applicable to the property when fixing a reasonable rent, and nothing else.

Mr. McFarlane: I am sorry that I have incurred your displeasure so much, Mr. Bowles, but I was trying to drive home how greatly the provision of these conversions depends upon—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must no longer persist in that line of argument at all. Mr. Hare.

Mr. Hare: I am very anxious to try to clarify my own mind—[An HON. MEMBER: "Impossible."] If the hon.

Member will give me a reasonable chance to achieve that difficult task, I shall be grateful to him. There is a very honest division of opinion on this matter. There are people like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) who believe that a tribunal will not work efficiently if, in fact, it receives directions. On the other hand, we feel that it is difficult for this House to give these tribunals a general broad directive on how they are to function. We feel that very strongly, and we have not so far been convinced in any way by the arguments which have been put forward, mostly by hon. and learned Gentlemen.
We consider that it is wrong that a tribunal should go into this matter with only a vague directive and without any specific guidance from the Minister who appoints them. We feel that what is really happening is that the Minister realises that it is extremely difficult to give a directive. We are not saying that our Amendment is the last argument, because we are certain that there are other considerations which should be added. We feel uneasy about the matter and we feel that the Minister is shirking the issue and "passing the buck" to the tribunals because he himself cannot give a proper answer. That cannot be good legislation, nor can it be anything about which the Minister himself can feel very happy.
I was very interested in the Second Reading Debate on this subject when my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) brought out this point. He said:
We might have six different houses paying widely different rents according to how each had been affected by the existing Acts. Which of these rents would the Minister suggest that the tribunal should take into account? I invite him to give the House further guidance. Which would he take into account if he were one of the three just men sitting as such a tribunal? The highest rent, the lowest rent or the average rent Or would he disregard them altogether? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 594.]
The Minister did not give a very good reply; in fact, he did not try to give a reply at all. He said that, whatever my right hon. and gallant Friend had said, the point was that this procedure was working in the case of the tribunals set up under the furnished lettings Act


and that they had to take into account the value of furniture and things of that sort. That really was a very vague and elusive statement to make.
I was also enthused by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last from the other side, and who said that it would confuse the minds of the members of the tribunal if they had detailed directions on which to work, but these three just men are going to be supermen; otherwise, they cannot possibly do what the Minister himself admits he cannot do. They must be people of the highest intelligence, and to say that they are going to be confused in their minds because they have a clear direction on how they are to work would seem to me to be some slight defamation of the character of these people. Hon. Members opposite must really produce some better argument. These tribunals must have from Parliament guidance as to how they are to work. It is unfair to ask men to go out into the world and grope in the dark merely because we as a legislature are incapable of telling them how to do the job we are commanding them to do.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I have had a fair amount of experience of decisions of reasonable men taken under similar sets of circumstances in dealing with a similar problem. I am absolutely convinced that it is vital and necessary to give reasonable men a general broad directive if for no other reason than to get conformity of decisions in the various tribunals all over the country. Unless they have such a broad directive, they will clearly give different decisions in the same sets of circumstances. I am very worried about this because I do not see how the tribunal is going to operate.
Let us take the specific example of somebody who has thrown off from a building of his own a small three-roomed flat. Supposing the tribunal said, "This is a three-roomed flat, and we consider a reasonable rent for it is the rent of a three-roomed council house." The owner will say, "But wait a minute, do you not think you ought to come and have a look at it, and take into account the amount of money it has cost me to convert it, the amenities which surround it, and other matters of that sort?" Unless they are given a specific direction of that nature, I do not think that the words

to take into account having regard to the circumstances
would cover the case.
In my view, there is a further and even graver point, and that is that there is no shadow of doubt that the Bill as at present drafted has already had a deterrent effect on private enterprise in the conversion of flats. Of course, that may well be the Minister's object; I would not put that beyond him. One of these days he will come to this House, as he has promised to do, and introduce further legislation. He will say, "Here is where private enterprise has failed once again; we shall have to put this into the hands of the local authorities." I hope that is not his intention, but, whether it is or not, that is the effect which the Bill will have on the conversion of new property.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going as far wide of the point under discussion as did his hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane).

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In order to make one's point, one has to give a reason, and that is the reason I am giving.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was wondering whether the Committee would not now come to a decision on this matter which has been debated for over an hour.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We attach a great deal of importance to this point. These are the decisions under which these new courts are to act. At a later date we shall have to consider the question of appeal and some form of modification; but unless there is some general directive it is very difficult to see how any modification is to be arrived at and, therefore, how any sense of justice is to be arrived at among the tenants. Unless tenants feel that some general principles are being applied, then I fear that we in this Committee tonight are passing provisions which will lead to an increase and not a diminution of trouble.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) gave an example, which has not been refuted by anyone, of a tribunal which took what seemed to him an unreasonable decision. It is only fair that the tribunals should have some form of general directive. I hope that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland


may make some reference to whether he thinks a tribunal in Scotland would or would not take into account the incidence of rates in fixing what would be a reasonable or unreasonable rent.

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the previous argument about converted flats used by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane)?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am referring to any house property in Scotland which comes under the sweep of this matter.

Mr. Hoy: With regard to the point dealt with by the hon. Member for Camlachie, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many of these houses would be affected by this Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is a question which I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland. Surely it is a novel situation when the Government ask the Opposition what the effect of the Government's legislation is going to be. The purpose of the Opposition is to ask the Government what the effect of their legislation is going to be. When we have the responsibility of governing Scotland, we shall have the duty to answer, but while we have not that responsibility we are entitled to demand the answer. I ask, in particular, whether those factors which are being taken into consideration will include the incidence of the owner's rates in Scotland, because that will be very important. All these things are important for the reason that we desire to—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): If the tribunal reduces a rent in Scotland that, of course, automatically reduces the owner's rates. I am not quite clear in what other atmosphere the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is considering this question of rent. For instance, if the rent is reduced from £40 to £30 or from £80 to £60 in Scotland, the owner's rates are reduced pari passu.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will it take into account the extent to which the rent is diminished by reason of the owner's rates?

Mr. Woodburn: I think I can say quite definitely that a tribunal is entitled to take every consideration into account in coming to its conclusions.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister of Health will remember that on Second Reading we could get no nearer to it than the mediaeval definition that the clock told the time by the principle of horologicity. I do not see that we are any nearer it today. I do not think that, as the subject is so wide and as so many divergent decisions can be taken, we can work it without either directions to the tribunal or some reviewing body which will subsequently bring these possibly conflicting decisions into a single code of case law.
We find ourselves really very anxious to see whether the Minister will perhaps expand the indications which he gave to the Committee earlier. He said he would be able to take the expenditure on a house into account. I think, however, that he said he was against giving any kind of directions. How, then, is he going to convey what is in his mind when he thinks it just for the tribunal to have regard to the money expended on a house if he is not going to give it any direction?

Mr. Bevan: When he rose to his feet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at first addressing himself to the question whether it was appropriate for the Committee now to reach a decision. Arguments should, of course, go on as long as there is any obscurity as to what are the issues involved. I have sat here since I came from dinner—of course, I do not know exactly what happened while I was away—but I very much doubt whether anything was said which makes the points different from what they were at the beginning.
8.30 p.m.
All that is between us—I am not saying it is an unimportant point; it is a very important point—is whether the tribunal should arbitrate on the general conditions stated in the Bill at the moment and which we are discussing, or whether they should be revised and particularised by more precise directions. I answered that at the very beginning by asking hon. Members to reflect about what happens when they try to do this. If you give some of the conditions that the tribunal must take into account, unless you add some words such as "and other material matters" then they will only take into account what is in the specific directions, and that of itself would give rise to injustice. If, on the other hand, in


order to make quite sure that you have not left out any particular conditions, you add the words "all other material conditions," then it is a piece of supererogation. All you need say is that the tribunal should take into account all relevant conditions. That is all that need be said. If we were to argue from now until tomorrow morning I venture to say, without too much immodesty I hope, that no one will make the circumstances any clearer than that. That is the issue which I think the Committee might now resolve.
On this business of procedure, may I say that we finish tonight at Ten o'clock. I am desperately anxious to get the Committee stage of this Bill finished tomorrow. I am not referring to this particular part of the Bill but to another part of the Bill which we are anxious to get on the Statute Book as early as we can, because a large number of houses are becoming decontrolled under the operation of the courts at the moment. We are anxious to get the Bill as early as possible. I think it is common ground. We are anxious to get the Bill in order that these people might be protected. We must get through the Committee stage tomorrow and the more time we spend this evening the longer will be our sitting tomorrow.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I sympathise with the Minister and I share his desire that we should proceed with the Bill. I think he will do me the justice of saying, however, that a great deal of the discussion has been conducted by hon. Members on his own side of the House, not to mention the Parliamentary group of the Communist Party. I do not desire to prolong this discussion because I am afraid we shall have to divide. It is not with any desire of obstruction, but we shall need to divide on more than one of these points we have put down because, as the Minister has said, to insert one alone would throw the whole thing out of balance. We have put down a group of points to which we attach importance and we shall have to divide on each of these points.
I think the Minister has put the question fairly; it is probably true that we could not come to any clearer definition of what divides us than that which he, with great clarity and logic, has stated. But if ever I am tried for my life I would much rather be tried under a specific

statute informing a court what it should consider and decide upon than by a general direction to some reasonable men to consider whether I had acted in an anti-social manner. If it were applied to his own case I am sure there is not one hon. Member who would not prefer that specific direction should be given, although when we consider the generality of cases we believe that reasonable men can come to decisions on other people's affairs on undefined grounds. There is a clear division between us, and I must now divide the Committee.

The Chairman: Will the right hon. and gallant Member indicate to the Chair upon which Amendment of the several in his name he would like to divide?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We had in mind that we should divide on the five considerations we have put down to guide the tribunal because otherwise there is a danger that somebody will think we are throwing the whole thing out of balance. To some of the points, such as rating, we attach great importance.

Sir J. Mellor: There is one point I must pursue. I am sorry to take up time. In resisting our Amendment the Minister has rested his case upon what he said was the clarity of Subsection (4). He said it is perfectly clear what it means and that if we argued all night we should not be any the wiser. I must put this question to him. Does he say that the relevant circumstances at which the tribunal will be entitled to look include the personal circumstances of the individual landlord and the individual tenant? We have had no answer to this point, although the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) dealt with the matter and expressed the view that the tribunal would be entitled to look at the personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant individually if they thought it reasonable. I want to know the Minister's view on this.

Mr. Bevan: It is not possible for me, and it would not be appropriate for me, to identify in the abstract any particular circumstance which the tribunal should take into account. It would be exceedingly improper. We are not dealing here with the personal circumstances of the tenant, we are not dealing with the personal circumstances of the landlord. It would not matter twopence whether the tenant was one of Jehovah's Witnesses or whether


the landlord was a Holy Roller. It has nothing to do with the matter at all. It is a purely property relationship. It does not deal with the subjective content of the landlord and the tenant, but with the objective contractual relations.

Sir J. Mellor: I am most grateful to the Minister for making that clear. If I do not misunderstand him he has made it perfectly clear that the tribunal can look at the circumstances of premises but not the circumstances of the parties who are concerned with those premises. If he has made that clear I feel I am properly answered and I am grateful to him. It is an answer which I think entirely justifies me in rising to my feet.

Mr. John Foster: I hope the Minister will feel that, as I have not intervened before and as I have a point to make on this argument, I am not wasting time. The Minister said that to do this would be a work of supererogation. I submit to him that he is wrong about that and that it is necessary to introduce particular words in order to bring the tribunal's mind to the factors which they can take into consideration. The chairmen of the tribunals are mostly laymen and there is a doubt in their minds as to which factors they can take into consideration. By setting up the particular words they are shown that they can take these matters into consideration. I think if the Minister looks at the proceedings of tribunals he will find that the chairmen of tribunals under the Act of 1946 are often in great doubt as to whether they can take this matter or that matter into consideration. It is not a matter of supererogation. It tells the chairmen of factors which they must take into consideration. It is for them to attach this or that weighting to the consideration and it is no answer to say that this is a work of supererogation. That argument will not wash.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know what the Latin tag is, but I believe there is a Latin tag which deals precisely with this point. I am, therefore, already sanctified by one of the first principles of jurisprudence. I do not consider the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has added any particular point at all. It might be, in fact, that in a particular set of circumstances which a

tribunal has to deal with on special application one of the categories might be more weighty than all the classification put in the Act altogether, but by putting something in the Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) has already said, it gives rise to an assumption that more weight should be attached to these particular categories. I had thought we could divide, because I thought we had exposed the differences, and no debate can do more than that. Now it must be left to the arbitrament of Members.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that absence of prescribed circumstances in the 1946 Act has led to the necessity for a great deal of judicial guidance in regard to that Act? Does he not agree that if the circumstances had been defined more closely in that Act, as is sought to be done in this Bill by these Amendments, that there might have been less necessity for that?

Mr. Bevan: The answer, of course, may be that if more precise directions had been given to the tribunals there would have been very much more litigation than there has been. I am anxious not to cultivate a new field for lawyers.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to a Latin tag. I should like to assure him that that Latin tag is excluded by the words, "without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing." That danger was foreseen and is excluded by those words.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the capital value of the dwelling-house immediately before the date of the application to the tribunal:
Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of that value as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 95; Noes, 258.

Division No.54.]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Li.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bullock, Capt M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig R.


Carson, E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Challen, C.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D
Studholme, H. G


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Digby, S. W.
McFarlane, C. S.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Donner, P. W.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Erroll, F. J.
Manningham-Buller, H. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Gammans, L, D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Devonport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daggar, G.
Hardy, E. A.


Albu, A. H.
Daines, P.
Harrison, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hastings, Dr. Somervills


Alpass, J. H
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Haworth, J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Harbison, Miss M.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hobson, C. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Diamond, J
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dobbie, W.
Horabin, T. L.


Baird, J.
Dodds, N. N.
Hoy, J.


Balfour, A.
Donovan, T.
Hubbard, T.


Barstow, P. G
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Barton, C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Battley, J. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Beswick, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Janner, B.


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Binns, J.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Jenkins, R. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Johnston, Douglas


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Follick, M.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Bramall, E. A.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Kinley, J.


Burden, T. W.
Gilzean, A.
Kirby, B. V


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Lang, G.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gooch, E. G.
Layers, S.


Carmichael, James
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Champion, A. J.
Grierson, E.
Leslie, J. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Cobb, F. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Logan, D. G.


Coldrick, W.
Gunter, R. J.
Longden, F.


Collindridge, F.
Guy, W. H.
Lyne, A. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McAdam, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
McAllister, G.


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Cullen, Miss
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
McGovern, J.







Mack, J. D.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


McKinlay, A. S.
Price, M. Philips
Tiffany, S.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


McLeavy, F.
Pryde, D. J.
Titterington, M. F.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Tolley, L.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Randall, H. E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ranger, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Reeves, J.
Usborne, Henry


Mann, Mrs. J.
Rhodes, H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Richards, R.
Viant, S. P.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Walker, G. H.


Medland, H. M.
Robens, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Messer, F.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Watson, W. M.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Sargood, R.
Weitzman, D.


Moody, A. S.
Scollan, T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sharp, Granville
West, D. G.


Mort, D. L.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Murray, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Nally, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wilkes, L.


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Skeffington, A. M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Oliver, G. H.
Solley, L. J.
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stamford, W.
Woods, G. S.


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Yates, V. F.


Parkin, B. T.
Stress. Dr. B
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Stubbs, A. E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sylvester, G. O.
Zilliacus, K.


Pearson, A.
Symonds, A. L.



Piratin, P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the amount of any expenditure incurred by the landlord in connection with the dwelling-house whether before or after the commencement of the tenancy:

Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of that amount as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 257.

Division No.55.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gage, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McFarlane, C. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Bower, N.
Gridley, Sir A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bremley)


Carson, E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Challen, C.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Channon, H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Howard, Hon. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Mellor, Sir J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kendall, W. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


De la Bère, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Digby, S. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Beyd, A. T.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Donner, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Lipson, D. L.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Low, A. R. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)




Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Sutcliffe H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (D. [...] E.)


Ropner, Col. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Scott, Lord W.
Touche, G. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Vane, W. M. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Spearman, A. C. M.
Wadsworth, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Hon. G. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, H. G.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Brigadier Mackeson and




Lieut.-Colonel Bramley-Davonport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Albu, A. H.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)


Anderson A. (Motherwell)
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Attewell, H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Ayles, W. H.
Gooch, E. G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Medland, H. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Baird, J.
Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Battley, J. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Guy. W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Benson, G.
Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.


Bring, G. H. C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T. E.


Binns, J
Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Blackburn, A. R.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Boardman, H.
Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bramall, E. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Burden, T. W.
Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Piratin, P.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Carmichael, James
Hughes, H, D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leads)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, M. Philips


Cobb, F. A.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pryde, D. J.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. pancras, S. E.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Collindridge, F.
Jenkins, R. H.
Randall, H. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Johnston, Douglas
Ranger, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rankin, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Reeves, J.


Cullen, Miss
Jones P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rhodes, H.


Daggar, G.
Keenan, W.
Richards, R.


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robens, A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Davies, S. O. (Methyr)
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helene)


Donovan. T
Leslie, J, R.
Shurmer, P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton>
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton>
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Longden, F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Solley, L. J.


Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fairhurst, F.
Mack, J. D.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stamford, W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Steele, T.


Follick, M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stress, Dr. B.


Foot, M. M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Stubbs, A. E.


Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.







Symonds, A. L.
Walker, G. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Watson, W. M.
Willis, E.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Weitzman, D.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woods, G. S.


Tiffany, S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Yates, V. F


Timmons, J.
West, D. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Titterington, M. F
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.



Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilkes, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Snow and


Usborne, Henry
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mr. George Wallace.


Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the rates payable in respect of the dwelling-house:
Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms

part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of those rates as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 100; Noes 258.

DivisionNo.56.]
AYES
9.07 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pickthorn, K.


Carson, E.
Kendall, W. D.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Challen, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crookshauk, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Scott, Lord W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
McFarlane, C. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Wadsworth, G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Walker-Smith, D.


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.
Mr. Studholme and




Mr. Wingfield Digby.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Battley, J. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Bechervaise, A. E
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Beswick, F.
Burden, T. W.


Alpass, J. H
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Burke, W. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Attewell, H. C.
Binns, J.
Carmichael, James


Awbery, S. S.
Blackburn, A. R
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cobb, F. A.


Baird, J.
Bramall, E. A
Cocks, F. S.


Balfour, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Collindridge, F.


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Colman, Miss G. M.




Corlett, Dr. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Ranger, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rankin, J.


Cullen, Miss
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Reeves, J.


Daggar, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rhodes, H.


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Richards, R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kenyon, C.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robens, A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Deer, G.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Diamond, J.
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Donovan, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Shurmer, P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upon)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan D. G.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilry)
Longden, F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAllister, G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Solley, L. J.


Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fairhurst, F.
Mack, J. D.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Farthing, W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stamford, W.


Fernyhough, E.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Steele, T.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Stross, Dr. B.


Follick, M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Stubbs, A. E.


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Symonds, A. L.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ganley Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gibbins, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tiffany, S.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Timmons, J.


Gooch, E. G.
Medland, H. M.
Titterington, M. F.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Messer, F.
Tolley, L.


Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Grierson, E.
Mitchison, G. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Griffiths, Rt. Mon. J. (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Usborne, Henry


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Gunter, R. J.
Mart, D. L.
Walker, G. H.


Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D.
Watson, W. M.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nally, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E.(Brentford)
West, D. G.


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon, W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Wilkes, L.


Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F
Wilkins, W. A.


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.
Willis, E.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Piratin, P.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Woods, G. S.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Yates, V. F.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, M. Philips
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pryde, D. J.



Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, R. H.
Randall, H. E.
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I bet to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the cost to the landlord of any services within the meaning of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946, in fact provided

by the landlord in connection with the dwelling-house:
Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of that cost as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 261.

Division No.57.]
AYES
[9.18 p. m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewring, I. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Osborne, C.


Bower, N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Pickthorn, K.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Donner, P. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Drayson, G. B
McFarlane, C. S.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Erroll, F. J.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macmilian, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gammas, L. D.
Marshall, S. H.(Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Major Conant and


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Wingfield Digby




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Alba, A. H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Grey, C. F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cove, W. G.
Grierson, E.


Alpass, J. H.
Cullen, Miss
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Attewell, H. C
Daines, P.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gunter, R. J.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Guy, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Baird, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Barstow, P. G.
Delargy, H. J.
Hardy, E. A.


Barton, C.
Diamond, J.
Harrison, J.


Battley, J. R.
Dobbie, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.
Haworth, J.


Beswick, F.
Donovan, T.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Binns, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holman, P.


Blackburn, A. R
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edward's, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Horabin, T. L.


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hoy, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T.


Bramail, E. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Farthing, W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Burden, T. W.
Follick, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Burke, W. A.
Foot, M. M.
Janner, B.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Carmichael, James
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Jenkins, R. H.


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Johnston, Douglas


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Cobb, F. A.
Gibbins, J.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Cocks, F. S.
Gilzean, A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Coldrick, W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Keenan, W.


Collindridge, F.
Gooch, E. G.
Kenyon, C.




Kinghorn, Squ.-Ldr. E
Oldfield, W. H.
Stross, Dr. B.


Kinley, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Stubbs, A. E.


Kirby, B. V.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sylvester, G. O.


Lang, G.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Symonds, A. L.


Lavers, S.
Palmer, A. M. F
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Leslie, J. R.
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lewis, J (Bolton)
Piratin, P.
Tiffany, S.


Logan, D. G.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Timmons, J.


Longden, F.
Popplewell, E.
Titterington, M. F.


Lyne, A. W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Tolley, L.


McAdam, W.
Porter, G (Leeds)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


McAllister, G.
Price, M. Philips
Turner-Samuels, M.


McGhee, H. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


McGovern, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, Henry


Mack, J. D.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Randall, H. E.
Walker, G. H.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Ranger, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKinlay, A. S
Rankin, J.
Warbey, W N.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reeves, J.
Watson, W. M.


McLeavy, F.
Rhodes, H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Richards, R
Weitzman, D.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, P. L (Faversham)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb' gh)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Sargood, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Scollan, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Segal, Dr. S.
Wilkes, L.


Medland, H. M.
Sharp, Granville
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Messer, F.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Monslow, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willis, E.


Moody, A. S.
Simmons, C. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


Morris, P. (Swaesea, W.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mort, D. L.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woods, G. S.


Moyle, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Yates, V. F.


Murray, J. D.
Snow, J. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Nally, W.
Solley, L. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Naylor, T. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Stamford, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Steele, T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in line 34, at the end, to insert:
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection there shall be taken into account by the tribunal in determining the rent which is reasonable for a dwelling-house the respective liabilities of the landlord and the tenant under or by virtue of the agreement of tenancy in respect of repairs to the dwelling-house:

Provided that where the dwelling-house in respect of which the application is made forms part of a property the tribunal shall take into account such apportioned part of the said liabilities as is reasonably appropriate to the dwelling-house having regard to the extent of the accommodation provided."

Question put, "that those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 264.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
De la Bère, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bennett, Sir P.
Digby, S. W.
Henderson, John (Catheart)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Hon. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edib' gh, W.)


Bower, N.
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W.
Drewe, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Kendall, W. D.


Carson, E.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Challen, C.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Channon, H.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gage, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lipson, D. L.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Low, A. R. W


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gridley, Sir A.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.




McCallum, Maj. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sutcliffe, H.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Teeling, William


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


McFarlane, C. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Touche, G. C.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Osborne, C.
Vane, W. M. F.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wadsworth, G.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Pickthorn, K.
Walker-Smith, D.


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorsel, E.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. L.
Williams, de Eresby, Lord


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Scott, Lord W.



Mellor, Sir J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Studholme.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.



Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kirby, B. V


Albu, A. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lang, G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lavers, S.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Attewell, H. C
Farthing, W. J
Leslie, J. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Ayles, W. H.
Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Follick, M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Baird, J.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Balfour, A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Barstow, P. G
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Barton, C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAllister, G.


Battley, J. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McGhee, H. G


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gibbins, J.
McGovern, J.


Beswick, F.
Gilzean, A.
Mack, J. D.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gooch, E. G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hell, M. W.)


Binns, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McKinlay, A. S.


Blackburn, A. R
Grey, C. F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Blenkinsop, A.
Grierson, E.
McLeavy, F.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bramall, E. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mainwarkig, W. H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Guy. W. H.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, George (Belper)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Burden, T. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Medland, H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Messer, F.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Carmichael, James
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mitchison, G. R


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Haworth, J.
Monslow, W


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A (Kingswinford)
Moody, A. S.


Chetwynd, G. R
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cobb, F. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Collindridge, F.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Murray, J. D


Colman, Miss G. M.
Horabin, T. L
Nally, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Cove, W. G.
Hubbard, T.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cullen, Miss
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Daggar, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Daines, P.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.


Deer, G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parkin, B. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Diamond, J.
Jenkins, R. H.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Dobbie, W.
Johnston, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Piratin, P.


Donovan, T.
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Popplewell, E.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Keenan, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Kingdom, Son.-Ldr. E.
Price, M. Philips


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J.
Pritt, D. N.







Proctor, W T.
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Pryde, D. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Weitzman, D.


Pursey, Comdr. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Randall, H. E.
Stamford, W
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ranger, J.
Steele, T.
West, D. G.


Rankin, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edmb'gh, E.)


Reeves, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Richards, R.
Symonds, A. L.
Wilkes, L.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Robens, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Sargood, R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Scollan, T.
Tiffany, S.
Willis, E.


Segal, Dr. S.
Timmons, J
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sharp, Granville
Titterington, M. F.
Wise, Major F. J.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tolley, L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Shurmer, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Woods, G. S.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Simmons, C. J
Usborne, Henry
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Skeffington, A. M.
Viant, S. P.
Zilliacus, K.


Skinnard, F. W
Walker, G. H.



Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. Williams: May I move the Amendment in page 2, line 42, in the absence of the hon. Members for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) in whose names it appears?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, after "house," to insert:
(a) owned by or under the management of a local authority; or
(b) which has been constructed under the authority of a licence granted for the purposes of a Defence Regulation and the licence has been granted subject to a condition limiting the rent at which the house may be let; or
(c).
I have read this Amendment with very great care, and I move it because I should like to find out what it is about. The two hon. Members have put down what must be a carefully considered Amendment. It is obvious that the meaning is that it puts a strict limit to the amount of rent which the local authority is to charge. It brings them within the category of the Act. That is the desire of a large number of Members of this Committee. It would be grossly unfair to the people of this country if no representation was made on their behalf to discover the true position. I face this matter with an open mind. I have great admiration for the hon. Member for South Tottenham. I feel sure that he would do nothing which is fundamentally wrong. He is held in the highest respect by every one in the Committee. Before we turn down this Amendment un-discussed and unconsidered, we should

think seriously. We have often been told by the Leader of the House that it is the duty of the Opposition to thresh out every possible Amendment. Remembering the orders which some of us have had from the Leader of the House, I think I am entitled to move this Amendment and to ask for its consideration by the Government. I do so in order to know why some houses should have their rents limited in this way, while others have the strictest limits put upon them.

The Chairman: I think I ought to inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that, if he desires to move his Amendment to insert a new Subsection (7), it can be discussed at the same time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Major Milner; we should desire to have our Amendment included in the discussion.

Mr. Bevan: This is a small point, but first I think the Committee ought to congratulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who moved the Amendment, on his chivalry in coming to the assistance of the hon. Members who have not moved it. Unfortunately, his discretion is very much less than his chivalry, because the Amendment seeks to do the very opposite of what be thought it means. However, I am sure that that will not deter him from repeating the performance.
The purpose of the Amendment was to make quite sure that houses erected under licence by local authorities were not


brought before the tribunals. The hon. Gentleman's indignation has been aroused in an unworthy cause, the idea being that the rents that are charged for houses owned by a statutory undertaking and erected under licence by a local authority since the war are not houses the rents of which can be described as standard. Therefore, the view I take is that the Bill should exclude them from the supervision of the tribunal, and, if that be not the case, I will look at it again and see that the proper language is used to secure that, if it is not, in fact, already secured.

Mr. Hare: I think the Minister will agree that the new Subsection (7) which my hon. Friends and I have put forward is a reasonable one, because, under Section (7) of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, the rent of houses constructed under a building licence is limited by the local authority which gave the licence for four years up to 30th December, 1949, so that they have a capital value if the owners wish to sell. We feel that the Minister should be prepared to accept this new subsection.

Mr. Bevan: I said that the purpose of the subsection already in the Bill is to secure the exclusion of these houses from reference to the tribunal, and if they are not so excluded, I will certainly seek to make it so.

Mr. Hare: I want to get quite clear from the Minister that, when he opposed the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), the Amendment to insert a new Subsection (7) was not in the same category, but that he has given an undertaking that he will provide within the Bill such wording as is necessary to exclude the rents of houses constructed under the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1935, from supervision by the tribunals. Once the period up to 30th December, 1949, has ended, these rents will naturally come within the purview of the tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: I thought I had made it clear that the houses to which the hon. Gentleman refers are houses erected for private ownership under licence by a local authority, and the conditions attached to them are as set forth in the Statute. Obviously, it will be quite inappropriate

for the Tribunal to have the right to arbitrate on rents which have already been determined in another Statute. My advice is that there is no danger, under the drafting of the Bill as it stands, that the tribunals will have the power to review these rents. I will look at it again, and if there is any doubt at all on the point, I will make it doubly sure.

9.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the assurance given by the Minister, I think that we on this side of the Committee can reasonably allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. We take it as a pledge by the Minister that he will look into it and, if necessary, embody the undertaking he has just given to the Committee.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to thank the Minister of Health for the courteous way in which he helped me to move the Amendment in the absence of his hon. Friends. I appreciate the fact that we have done what was right. Of course, the Amendment was slightly obscure; I never for one minute maintained that it was an Amendment easy to understand. Now the right hon. Gentleman has been able to clear up the point as to what it actually meant. Having arrived at that point—it is really quite an accomplishment for someone who is not a member of the Communist Party to get the right hon. Gentleman to accept anything today —he has not accepted the Amendment, but he has given us an assurance that he will go into the matter. That comforts me as far as the Government are concerned, but I never take much notice of the Government. However, I now have the assurance of my right hon. and gallant Friend on the Opposition Front Bench that the right hon. Gentleman has given the proper information and, under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to add:
(7) Where the rent reserved under the terms of a contract of tenancy is reduced under this Section such contract of tenancy shall be deemed to have been terminated upon the making of the determination and the tenant shall be deemed to retain possession of such dwelling-house thereafter by virtue of the provisions of the principal Acts.
As the Committee will see from the terms of the Amendment, its effect, if


adopted, is that when a reduction of rent is made under this Clause, it acts as a determination of the contractual tenancy with the consequence that a statutory tenancy then comes into operation in its place. I say at once that, of course, this Amendment does not have the same importance as it would have had if the Minister had not put down his new Clause in regard to the prohibition of the collection of premiums by assigning contractual tenants. It was present, of course, to the minds of my hon. Friends and myself that this provision would by itself limit the possibility of the collection of premiums by assigning tenants.

Mr. Bevan: indicated assent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head in assent because I think he will admit that is a sign that we on this side of the Committee have taken account of the difficulties and injustices to which tenants are sometimes exposed, because it is a fact that the collection of premiums was not exclusively carried out by landlords, but equally, and sometimes more so, by assigning tenants. As the Committee are aware, a statutory tenant is not able voluntarily to assign his tenancy, and therefore, of course, could not in any event have collected a premium upon assigning.
It was principally with that in view that this Amendment was put down. As I have tried to explain to the Committee, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves with the Minister's new Clause, that particular consideration no longer arises. Nevertheless, I think it is right that the subsection should still be incorporated in the Bill. Where a reduction is given the contractual aspect of the tenancy is obviously at an end. The Statute has been invoked and it is proper that that relationship should continue on the footing of a statutory tenancy limited and conditioned by the Rent Restriction Acts. Of course, as the Committee is aware, by Section 15 of the 1920 Act, the statutory tenant is entitled
to the benefit of all the terms and conditions of the original contract
and, therefore, so long as the Rent Restriction Acts—

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Minister must not shake his head about that.

Mr. Bevan: I am shaking my head.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that the Minister is shaking his head, but what I said was that he should not shake his head. Even Ministers should not shake their heads when one simply quotes from a Statute.

Mr. Janner: Quote the Statute.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am asked by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) to quote the Statute.

Mr. Janner: I do not want the hon. Member to read the lot.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member asks me to quote the Section in full and I was about to do so when he asked me to desist. I cannot please him in every way, but he will accept, and the Committee will accept, that that is the effect of Section 15 of the 1920 Act. I merely point that out to show that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, as logically I think it should be, it will not prejudice the position of the tenant during the continuance of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is for those reasons—now I appreciate limited reasons—that I am moving this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: If the words were incorporated in the Bill very considerable injustice would be done to the contractual tenant. The tribunal would take into account, in determining the reasonable rent, the benefits that the tenant would have under the contract. That would be one of the things they would do. If, after the determination had been made, the tenant became a statutory tenant he would have to pay the same rent without benefiting by the conditions of his contractual tenancy and, consequently, an injustice would be done to the tenant.
Section 15 of the 1920 Act is not relevant in this case because we are now speaking about a set of circumstances in which the tribunal are assessing what is a reasonable rent, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and some of the circumstances of the case will be the advantages a tenant enjoys under a contractual tenancy. Therefore, having assumed the reasonable rent in such circumstances, if the rights under the contractual tenancy were abandoned and the tenant became a statutory tenant, still having to pay the rent which has been


assessed in the way I have described, there would be an injustice to the tenant. In the circumstances I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Janner: I hope the Minister will forgive me if I try to correct a wrong impression which he has just created, because the position is that which was described by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) in that, under Section 15, the statutory tenant would retain the same rights as far as that tenancy was concerned as under a contractual tenancy. Section 15 of the Act says that. But that is not quite the point. I ask the Minister to reject this Amendment on a material ground which is extremely important. Once one determines the contractual tenancy, one is thrown upon the statutory period, which is an exceedingly difficult thing for a person who has a lease or a tenancy which extends over a considerable number of years.
For example, if we had a period of seven years to run, and if, according to the Amendment, we were placed under the obligation of making that a statutory tenancy, that tenancy would not require even a notice to quit in order to terminate it; and it would mean that the tenant who became the statutory tenant would consequently be deprived of seven years' tenancy, although no such provision pertained in any other portion of the principal Acts. I, for my part, would say it would be an extremely serious thing on this occasion to deprive the tenant of what the tenant has always been entitled to, that is to say, the retention of his contract, although the rent might be reduced. In those circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn, because it is a very serious thing for a contractual tenant who has a long tenancy.

Mr. J. Foster: I think the right hon. Gentleman probably appreciates that his brief was mistaken.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Foster: Well, the right hon. Gentleman has the authority of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), and his argument was that this Amendment would turn a contractual tenant into a statutory tenant. He then went

on to say that a statutory tenant would not have the benefits of the contract. As I understand Section 15 of the 1920 Act, it says exactly the opposite. It says that a statutory tenant shall be entitled to the benefit of all the terms and conditions—

Mr. Janner: Not the rent.

Mr. Foster: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman read the proviso? It is an important matter.

Mr. Foster: That is the point of the hon. Member for West Leicester. The proviso deals with notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that Section 15 was irrelevant because the tribunal had regard to the rent in all the circumstances of the case. That is what I understood him to say. Section 15 is not irrelevant. It deals precisely with this point, that if the contractual tenant is turned into a statutory tenant he continues to enjoy the benefits of the contract. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he loses the benefits.

Mr. Bevan: No. The hon. Member is wrong here. What the hon. Member for West Leicester was doing was giving an additional reason for rejecting the Amendment. It is not a reason which conflicts with the reason I gave for rejecting the Amendment. The hon. Member represents it as though it were a conflicting reason. What we desire to do is to retain the benefits of the contractual tenancy that the tenant would still be able to enjoy, and not to lose those benefits and the other benefits we should also lose if he became a statutory tenant only.

Mr. Foster: Obviously, there is a conflict here. The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that what I am saying is that he keeps all the benefits. He is trying to meet an argument I am not putting forward. I am saying that Section 15 makes the statutory tenant keep all the benefits of contract.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Foster: That is either right or wrong. The hon. Member said—

Mr. Bevan: He said so, but what he said is not necessarily all the truth.

Mr. Foster: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is misleading one of his supporters. However, the right hon. Gentleman has not advanced a new reason why it is not so. One can easily go wrong on these Acts, and I do not advance my argument dogmatically that that is how the Section reads, but that is how I read it.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DENTISTS)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 23rd December, 1948, entitled the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Fees (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1948, (S.I., 1948, No. 2803), a copy of which was presented on 18th January, be annulled.
It is necessary for me to declare my interest as a practising dental surgeon. This regulation was introduced by the Minister on 23rd December as an attempt to curb the very large incomes being made at the present time by dentists. It is an attempt to bring them into some relation with the Spens Committee's Report, which laid down what should be a reasonable remuneration. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not attempting to justify the present high level of dental incomes. I consider that I am in a fairly strong position, because on 5th July when these scales were introduced I warned the Minister that he was paying dentists far too much. My criticism is not that he is making a cut but of the method by which he is making it.
There are one or two generalities about the dental situation of which the House should be informed. The Spens Committee on dental remuneration reported in 1946 that the income of a dentist in his prime, working for 33 hours a week at his chair side, should be £1,600 a year in 1939 values, which is something like £1,750 at present-day values. It is essential also that the House should

recognise that the dentist is not paid like the doctor. He is paid by a scale of fees, with a separate fee for each item of treatment, one fee for a filling, another fee for an extraction, and so on. When this itemised scale was introduced in July last, the Minister made it quite clear that it was purely a temporary scale—it was experimental, and that within the very near future it would have to be modified to bring it into line with practical experience. No one at that time could say how it would work. What then is the meaning of this regulation? It says in the Explanatory Note:
The Regulations amend the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Fees Regulations, 1948, by providing for a reduction of the fees payable to dental practitioners when the fees payable under those Regulations exceed a rate of £400 a month. The amount of the reduction is one half of the fees in excess of that figure.
This cut operated from 1st February. My criticism is that the method used by the Minister was hasty. The proper method for cutting dentists' incomes should be, as he himself suggested on 5th July might be necessary, by revising the scale of fees rather than the hasty method of chopping down by 50 per cent. anything over a certain amount. In other words, by a revision of the scale of fees the cut would operate not after the dentist had made £400 gross, but would be an immediate cut on all dentists' incomes. Why should the dentist who is working wholeheartedly within the scheme and accepting none but State patients be penalised by this cut when the dentist who is working in the scheme only part time, and doing no more than he need—that is, the dentist who takes up to £400 from State patients—gets off scot-free?
Speaking from a dentist's point of view, I think that there are many anomalies in this hastily drawn regulation. For instance, the cut will operate from 1st February, but the regulation states that money owing to a dentist before 1st February will be taken into consideration when the cut operates. The secretary of the Incorporated Dental Society writes to me:
A dentist who is owed £3,400"—
and a dentist may be owed three or four months' income at the present moment; and most dentists are owed at least two months—


would have the deduction made on reaching his first £1,000 after February 1st. If one is owed £2,400 the deduction would operate at £2,000 after February 1st, and to one owed £1,400 the cut will operate at £3,000 after February 1st.
All general practitioners on February 1st except new entrants on or after that date have some amount owing to them, so that none except the new entrants would be able to earn the full gross amount of £4,400 in the eleven month period without deduction.
In the different areas dentists are paid by their local executive councils; some areas pay the dentists on one date, some on another, and they may be paid for differing periods. The result is that in some areas dentists' incomes will be cut much more than in others, and I do not think there can be any justification for that. I agree that dentists' incomes must be cut; but if they are to be cut, then they must be cut equally. Under this regulation the cut will be large or small according to the area in which the dentists live.
Those dentists who have come into the scheme because of pressure of public opinion—and there is a large number; some have come in only this month—will not be cut until they reach the full gross income of £4,800, whereas for dentists who have worked sincerely in the scheme and are owed say £2,000 the cut will operate after their income has reached £2,400.
Another anomaly in the scheme concerns what we call existing contracts. A patient may go to a dentist any time up to 23rd December when this regulation was laid, and enter into a contract to have 10 fillings, or to have teeth extracted, dentures fitted, and the Minister guarantees to pay the dentist a certain sum for the work. As far as existing contracts are concerned, there will be no cut. The monthly cheque will still be cut but dentists can claim back on existing contracts at the end of the year. How will this work? First of all, it will be very difficult for dentists, who are very busy today, to keep books and lists of the kind of work which was agreed to prior to and after 1st February. How the cut is to be assessed afterwards I do not know. Apart from that, even according to the Spens Report, out of his gross earnings a dentist has to pay 52 per cent. in expenses, such as salaries to his mechanics, his assistant, and so on; he has to pay the expenses even though his

cheque is being cut. At present, on an average every dentist is owed for about two months' work; in other words, payment is two months in arrear since the Act operated.
When there was a dispute between the Government and the dental profession and certain dentists withheld their service, those dentists who were loyal to the Government were promised by the Minister that if the Spens Report was in favour of higher remuneration, he would make retrospective payment to them. The Spens Committee reported 12 months ago, and those loyal dentists have still not been paid what was promised them by the Minister of National Insurance way back in November, 1946, and that is still outstanding. Dentists are now asked to hold back until the end of December before they get their money on existing contracts.
Another minor anomaly relates to anaesthetists' fees. A large number of dentists call in doctors to give anaesthetics for them for the clearance of teeth. The dentists have to pay the doctor's fees, and those fees are included in their monthly cheque. Some dentists, especially those in industrial areas where there are large numbers of extractions, pay the doctors 15 to 20 guineas a week. The dentist has to pay the doctor the full amount but the dentist may have his cheque for that amount cut by 50 per cent. over a month. Will the Minister do anything to remove that anomaly.
There is also the question of the balanced scale of fees. The House should realise that one of the greatest achievements concerning dental aspects of the National Health Service is that in the past a dentist was paid what I consider was an extortionate amount for dentures. He could charge 20 or 30 guineas for a full set, but if the dentist had a sensible patient he was lucky if he got 10s. 6d. or 12s. 6d. for a filling, although the amount of skill required for filling the teeth was much greater than that required for fitting the dentures. The dentist who made three or four full upper and lower dentures a week needed to do little more, but the conscientious man who did fillings had time for little else.
The Minister recognised that the scale of payment was completely unbalanced, and now for the first time the dentists have a balanced scale. The fee for dentures was reduced to ten guineas and the


fees for fillings were increased until they averaged £1 to 30s. a filling. That was good. I can claim that I had something to do with it. However, if anything the balance went too much the other way. At least, the fee for dentures was cut completely to the bone. Today the 50 per cent. cut operates over a certain amount. The dentist who is doing fillings can still make a small profit, but he cannot make a profit on fitting dentures because the 50 per cent. cut operates and he gets five guineas for fitting a full upper and lower denture. I can prove to the House that the cost to a dentist who is doing a good job and putting good quality materials into his dentures is from £5 to £6. I can say from practical experience that it takes £6 to turn out a full upper and lower denture. Yet the dentist will now receive five guineas for doing that job.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Does the hon. Member say that the dentist can make only a small profit on operations other than dentures and no profit on dentures? Is he arguing that the dentists' costs are substantially higher than the 50 per cent. which has usually been accepted?

Mr. Baird: Not at all. I do not know the point the hon. Member was trying to put, but I was certainly not arguing that. The point is that the cut operates in such a way that the dentist will be making a loss in certain instances if he produces a high-quality denture, and the conclusion we draw from that is that dentists will be encouraged to put inferior material into dentures in order to clear their expenses. However, those are minor anomalies under the regulations. The most important point relates to the method the Minister has used to cut dentists' fees. This is the point I want to impress on the House. This will create a black market in dentistry. We already see it. We can read about it in the newspapers every day.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not had very much experience at the Ministry of Health—I am not saying that in any slighting way—but his predecessor knows some of the work I have done as far as dentistry is concerned. I think I can claim—I am saying it very modestly—that, apart from the Minister himself, I have done more with regard to the dental aspects of the National Health Service

than anyone else in the House. I think I can claim that I speak here, not on behalf of the wealthy dentists, but on behalf of the poor patients of the wealthy dentists. I have spoken on these lines many times in the House. What is the position? The loyal dentist who has been trying to work the Act, not merely according to the law but according to the spirit of the Act, has been working hard to see as many patients as he could; he has not been turning patients away, and the result is that patients have been flocking to him and he has been making a lot of money.
I do not justify his income. I think it should be cut, and he himself, on the whole, would agree that he is making too much money and wants to be cut—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is, the majority of the dental profession. We read in the newspapers about dentists who are turning patients away and doing all sorts of unethical things, but they are in the minority; the majority are trying to do a good job of work. There are many trade unionists on this side of the House. Let me tell them that when a dentist works overtime, his rate is cut by 50 per cent. We all know that they are being paid too much and that the method of the Government to cut them is by saying, "Let him carry on at the full rate as long as he works 42 hours a week." Only after he works overtime on behalf of the Government, trying to treat people who need it, is his rate cut by a half, and that is an entirely wrong method. What should be done is to revise the scale of fees for treatment item by item.
There are, however, some dentists in this country at present who are bringing the dental profession into disrepute. The Press have taken it up, hon. Members have asked questions. I want to make it quite clear—and I think I am speaking on behalf of all sides of the House when I say it—that we deplore their attitude. As a result of the Minister's regulation, a dentist can make up to £400 a month gross, which is a net income of £45 per week before his income is cut at all. He works hard until he makes £400 a month, then when a patient comes along wanting further treatment, he says, "No, I have done my quota. If I treat you under the Government scheme I shall have a cut


of 50 per cent. Therefore, I will not treat you unless you come to me as a private patient." The patient who wants dentures can wait a month until the next month starts, but patients in pain cannot wait, and they have to pay on the nail. The Minister's regulation is encouraging these immoral dentists.
Under the National Health scheme the whole of a dentist's income is taxable, and he cannot dodge it, but the House should realise that it is easy for a dentist to do so by treating casual patients and getting cash for it, and very often the Income Tax authorities know nothing about it. Therefore, that is a further encouragement. This Act is a compromise with the doctors and dentists, it is not a Socialist Measure. Under the Act a dentist is legally entitled to refuse to accept a patient. There is nothing illegal about that, but while he is legally entitled to turn away a patient in pain because he cannot pay, I say that all the leaders of the dental profession must condemn that action as ethically wrong, and I hope the House will endorse that view. Furthermore, we should warn those dentists who are doing this that if they continue to turn away patients simply because they have reached their quota, the Government must take action in some way—I do not know how—to see that this immoral practice is stopped immediately.
The Minister may argue that he has made a certain concession to dentists. The Spens Committee reported that dentists should make an income of £1,750 on a 33-hour chair-side week. The Spens Committee said also that dentists working over 33 hours at the chair-side were endangering their health. The Minister of Health went some way towards making a concession by saying that he would not cut their income until they had worked a 42-hour week. He may say that he does not want dentists to work over 42 hours for fear that the standard of their work will decrease. As a practising dentist, however, I do not think that is true. In certain circumstances—if health permits, and with a well organised surgery—a dentist can work over 42 hours a week and still do a good job of work. If this scheme and the National Health Service are to work, with the present-day shortage of dentists and the great demand for legitimate treatment which we are getting, and remembering also that

people visit dentists for necessary treatment, and not simply to get something for nothing, then those dentists whose health will permit must be encouraged to work over these hours.
Hon. Members are aware of the state of the priority services in dentistry and the dental service for schools. Because of the shortsightedness of the Minister the priority dental services have already to a great extent broken down, and I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that if this regulation is allowed to stand, or if he does not introduce an Amendment to effect a more sensible scheme in the near future, the general dental services, in certain districts at least, as with the schools dental service will break down.
I have criticised the Government because they have not gone far enough on Socialist lines. The methods of payment for dentists, by a scale of fees with varying amounts for each item of treatment, and haggling about how much they should get for this or that item—this type of payment for professional men is degrading. The only solution for both doctors and dentists, as far as remuneration is concerned, is a salaried service. We on this side have always believed in a salaried medical service. To please hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to please the professions, we compromised. A considerable number of dentists have been taking advantage of that compromise. They have been misusing our trust in them. I warn the House, and especially dentists, that if they continue degrading their profession, as some of them are doing, the Government can have no alternative to introducing a full salaried service at the first possible opportunity.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Bramall: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not require to take up much of the time of the House or to cover any of the ground which has been so well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird). Unlike him, I have no direct interest in this matter. It will not make a penny piece of difference to me, except as a taxpayer, whether this Prayer is accepted or not. I have a very great interest, however, in that many of my constituents are already being very gravely harmed by the operation of this regulation which the Minister has laid before the House.
I should like to put before the House the position of dental services in the constituency which I represent. The Borough of Bexley has a population of some 90,000. It has only 11 dentists, of whom three are local authority dentists. In fact, only seven are in the National Health Service, which gives a ratio of one for more than every 11,000 inhabitants, whereas the national ratio, as shown by the figures of the Teviot Committee. is something like one to 4,000 of the population.
I have made comparisons with other areas of similar population. Reading, for instance, has 58 dentists. The borough in which I live, Twickenham, with a population only 10,000 greater than Bexley, has 46 dentists. The Borough of Beckenham, which is about two-thirds the size of Bexley and is not very far from it, has 18 dentists. There are a number of other areas similar to that which I represent. Dagenham is another area with an amazingly low proportion of dentists. It is inevitable, therefore, that every dentist must treat a very large number of patients, otherwise patients must go without treatment.
One can well believe that in an area where there are plenty of dentists of the immoral type mentioned by my hon. Friend, who choose to misuse the regulations and to blackmail their patients in this way, they will say, "We are not going to make so much money out of the Health Service. If you come as Health Service patients, we will only take you in the very distant future, but if you come as paying patients we can take you right away." A patient can exercise his choice and go to a dentist who is differently situated in such an area, but that is not possible in the area which I represent. There every dentist has a crowded waiting-room and could work for 24 hours a day, let alone 42 hours a week, and still not do all the work demanded of him.
Everything possible should be done to help people badly situated in areas of that type to get treatment at least reasonably soon. But what is happening? I will give the waiting list of one typical dentist in my area: next appointments under the Health Service to be made for fillings are in June; next appointments for dentures are in December. Those are for people whose teeth he has extracted. Those who want dentures re-

placed he frankly tells that if they do not wish to come to him as paying patients, they must go to other dentists, as he cannot see them at any time which he can foresee in the future.
I cannot see how the Minister can face this situation with any degree of equanimity. I know that the situation was bad without this regulation and that there is a great shortage of dentists which unfortunately is largely localised. Areas like that which I represent are largely working-class and have grown up in the last 30 years and not attracted dentists. They are not there and no one can compel them to be there. But the Minister should at least avoid doing the very thing which makes the situation worse.
Only today I received a letter which illustrated the way in which this regulation has already made the situation worse. One of my constituents wanted to replace his dentures and went to a dentist last October. He was told that it would take three months if it was done under the National Health Service, and incidentally he was told that it could be done more quickly if he paid. That is by the way, because he chose to have it done under the Health Service. Four months have now elapsed and the dentist has told him, "I am afraid I cannot see you at all and you will have to find another dentist." That is because the dentist is now limiting his work and instead of taking a given number of appointments in a month, he is spacing them out, as he must see to it that under the Health Service he does not earn more than £400 a month. Therefore, he already had a long waiting list and an overfilled book which are still further protracted in order that in one month he may not receive more than £400 worth of work under the Health Service.
A minority of dentists are doing as my hon. Friend said they have done and will do. They are saying to people, very often to people in great pain, "If you choose to pay you can be seen today or tomorrow or this week or whatever it may be, but if you do not choose to pay but choose to take advantage of the Health Service of which you have every right to take advantage, you must wait until June or December"—or whatever the date is. Undoubtedly that sort of thing has been increased by the advent of this order. Until this order was made I had no complaints of this


kind. Since the order was made in December, I have had a number. The Minister has seen them, because I have passed them on to him. I have talked with the dentists themselves since I have had these complaints and asked them if they were doing the things alleged and, if so, why. They said—and I admit it is a very difficult argument to answer—that the Minister is saying to them, "If you work more than a certain amount of time, you shall be paid half rate for doing it." Therefore, they do not see that that is a reasonable proposition.
As my hon. Friend has said, they are legally entitled to refuse any patient under the National Health Service. I do not think the Minister will be able to do anything about these complaints I have sent him. No action can be taken against any dentist who does this. In areas such as I represent—I speak no wider than that because I know no cases wider than that—the Minister is doing the very thing which is encouraging dentists to do that undesirable thing and to do it under the law as it now stands, and the Minister is powerless to prevent it. That seems to me a very unfortunate situation for a Minister to encourage.
I know that one of the Minister's arguments on this is that he does not want dentists to work more than 42 hours a week. I am convinced that if the Minister were to insist on this position, if he were to limit every dentist to working only 42 hours a week in the Health Service, not only would the Health Service break down, but the whole of my constituency would be in a ferment against a Health Service which they would regard as nothing but a mockery. It is because dentists are working far more than that that the Health Service has worked so successfully, comparatively speaking, up to the present time. I think the Minister is saying that we must accept the position where dentists work this length of time, but we ought not to pay them properly for doing it.
I should like to stress the fact that I have nothing against the basis conception behind this order, that the total remuneration of dentists is too high and should be reduced but I appeal to the Minister in the strongest terms to reconsider a method by which he is penalising those dentists who work most of the time in the Health Service, by which,

without making it impossible for them to work more than a certain amount of time, he is paying them inadequately for doing so, and by which he is preventing dentists, particularly in those areas which have too few dentists, from doing the amount of work that they should do to give people proper treatment, and encouraging dentists to seek more and more the black market way of offering people either an indefinite wait before having treatment in the Health Service or treatment at once for which they pay.
I believe that any scheme which encourages conduct of that type on the part of dentists must be a bad one and I believe that by this order the Minister is making it extremely difficult for anyone to pass any moral rebuke on the dentist who behaves like this because he is being directly encouraged to do it by the whole basis of remuneration being cut away from him. If, instead of working conscientiously to fulfil the needs of patients under the Health Service, he turns aside and insists on their paying, then he can get full remuneration for the work which he does.

10.35 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) is an authority on this subject. I think it is true to say that he knows more about dentistry than any other hon. Member, but when last summer I ventured to move a Prayer to annul a previous order—the order which in fact set up this scheme—I think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton stigmatised my comments upon it as rubbish. I do not think that I prophesied then that within a year the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton would be coming forward to move another Prayer in similar terms and to use in connection with it—

Mr. Baird: The terms of this Prayer are entirely different from the terms of the Prayer moved by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The terms of the Prayer are different in respect of one month. The terms of the comments of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton are very different indeed from the terms of his speech on that occasion. I should like to explain to the House my attitude to this Prayer, which I believe


is the attitude of a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I am afraid it can be summed up best in the trite words, "We told you so," because when last May we discussed the order setting up the dental scheme under the National Health Service Act, we then said that if the Minister persisted in carrying out the scheme on these lines it would inevitably lead to trouble, and that the trouble would be particularly in the form of bad work on the part of those dentists who would be tempted by the inadequacy of the scheme to do bad work; and that the good dentist to whom the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton referred would be very seriously prejudiced by reason of the scheme.

Mr. Baird: In the Prayer last year, when the hon. Member for South Hendon referred to good dentists he was referring to those who charged high fees. When I talk about good dentists, I am talking about the dentists who are wholeheartedly working this scheme, and whom the hon. Member for South Hendon stigmatises as bad dentists.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, on looking up my speech, can find that I described good dentists as those charging high fees, he can make what play with it he likes. There will be time for him in this Debate to do so. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said it would be necessary for the Minister to revise the whole scale of pay—I think that was the effect of what he said—but when one listened to his arguments, it was plain that he did not mean revising the whole scale of pay, because that would do nothing at all to cover the kind of difficulty to which he has referred—the difficulty regarding overtime. The hon. Member suggested, in a way which could not have been done better from these benches, that if the Minister wants to get more and better work from the dentists, it is desirable to give an inducement. That is a strange argument to come from that side of the House.

Mr. Baird: What about my final argument?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is a general principle with which we would not disagree. On the other hand, there is a limit beyond which I think we would all agree that it is undesirable to induce

anyone to try to work. If one were to revise the scale of fees—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this Debate tonight, will comment on the point—in such a way as to bring in the dentists who are now earning £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 a year, down to the kind of level contemplated in this order, it would mean bringing down the less well-paid dentists to a level below anything which the hon. Gentleman opposite, or I think anyone in this House, would tolerate.
This scheme, when first introduced, was the acme of good administration; it was, a boon for which all the people of this country had longed; but tonight, we have a compromise scheme and not what the Socialist Party would have done had they had a free hand. It is not at all what they want but when the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton came to his peroration, he let the cat out of the bag. What he wants is a salaried service—[Interruption]—and I hear hon. Members behind the Parliamentary Secretary apparently supporting that idea. Is that the object? Is it the idea to make the acceptance of such a service inevitable? When we put down a Prayer last year, we did not know what would be the position, but when Statutory Instrument 1297 of 1948 was published, we knew for the first time what was the scale of remuneration intended by the Government; and it was then perfectly obvious that the policy of the Government was to float off this part of the National Health Service in gold, making it completely impossible for the dentists to resist coming in.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Bribery and corruption.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The plain truth is that that has been the result. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot deny, in the face of his own order, that that is so, and he cannot deny that a large proportion of dentists have come in since the publication of that order. But now we shall have a different story; we are knocking off part of the enticement and there will be, I think further reductions—this is not the end. I cannot say that the Minister has made a breach of public faith, because he stated that this scale of remuneration was liable to review, but it is also true to say that the dentists came in on the basis that


this was to be the general level of remuneration.

Mr. Baird: The dentists came in when it was made clear that the basis would be the recommendation of the Spens Report of £1,750 for a 33 hour week. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of reducing the remuneration below the standards recommended in that Report, or is he not? Will he give me a straight answer?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer. The whole method of remunerating dentists should be revised. I have always said that the original scheme was unworkable, and whatever one does by way of messing about with the remuneration laid down in the original order, against which we put down the Prayer last year, will not clear up the mess in which the Government find themselves. As the two hon. Members opposite have said, this order is very nearly futile in carrying out the purpose which the Government have in mind.
No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister are very much concerned about the drift away from the public dental service into private practice. We are all concerned about that development, but what are the facts and the figures that the Government have to face? I have here a copy of the "British Dental Journal" for the month of January, and it will be of interest to the House to hear of the advertisements in this newspaper. There are classified together the advertisements for posts in the public service. They are all very nearly the same and I have not chosen any outstanding ones. Perhaps I may refer to one or two:
Montgomeryshire Education Committee—Assistant school dental officer … commencing salary £780 rising by annual increments of £30, and one increment of £20 to £980 per annum.
County Borough of Ipswich: Appointment of assistant dental surgeons. … Applicants must be fully qualified and registered dental surgeons. Salary will be at the rate of £750 per annum rising by annual increments of £50 to £900 per annum.
and so they go on.
On the following page of this journal there are advertisements for practitioners in private practice. I think it is to these that the House should turn its attention. I will quote two or three:

West Country.—Old-established middleclass practice.—Assistant dental surgeon required. Early partnership to suitable applicant, meanwhile salary plus share profits. … No late evening appointments. Modern equipment. First year, at least £1,250.
Preston, Lancs.—Assistant required with or without view to partnership. £1,250 per annum and bonus. No book-keeping.
Assistant required for large practice, Bradford, Yorkshire. Excellent opportunity, salary plus commission. £1,000 to £1,500, 40-hour week. First-class working and living accommodation available.
How on earth can the public dental service be maintained when the salaries offered are somewhere about half of what is being offered in private practice? It is physically impossible. That is the situation the Government must face and that is the situation which the order does not touch at all.

Mr. Speaker: That is not what we are discussing now.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am merely saying that it is futile to expect the order to carry out any effective purpose at all, and it cannot be said that limiting dentists' fees to a ceiling of £2,400 a year net will do anything to revive the public dental service. Again, the order must be ineffective in catching what has been called the "dental spiv." There has been some reference to that particular gentleman by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion. Here are two examples of the danger. I am afraid I have to take them both from the Tory Press, but I think these examples have not been noticed so much by the Press which sympathises with the Government. In the "Daily Express" of 21st January there was a report of the West Sussex Health Council that for three hours' work a dentist who claimed to have done 28 fillings was paid £28 8s. 6d. That type of work will be unaffected by this order.
Again, there was a letter in the "Daily Telegraph" on 15th December from a dentist who said that in future he would work two and a half days a week and earn £4,800 a year and then play golf. That type of man is going to be unaffected. He may work for only two and a half days and then play golf, or work for two and a half days in public service and then take up private practice. The order is entirely ineffective in covering that type of practice. The order is ineffective in doing what is essential at this moment—restoring the balance be-


tween the scale of emoluments of dentists and the scale of emoluments of the other professions, in particular the doctors. It does not really touch the problem at all. Merely to limit dentists in the public service to £4,800 a year will do nothing to bring them into general line with the doctors or with any other profession.
The dilemma in which the Government are placed is that either the Minister must reduce the whole scale of dentists' remuneration or he must increase the rate of the doctors' remuneration, in particular, so as to bring him into line with the dentists. That is the dilemma. It is a perfectly simple one. It is not one that we on this side of the House created. We sympathise with the Minister, but it is his own fault. He made this order, and we should like to hear how he thinks this amending order is really going to alter it at all. The present order does something; it is an order in the right direction in that it sets some limit to what is admitted to be in some part, at any rate, a public scandal. Therefore, we do not regard it with disapproval. It is understandable, and the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt remember that we have not put down a Prayer, and that the Prayer has come from behind his own Benches. We shall listen with the greatest attention to what the Parliamentary Secretary says before making up our minds what line we should take upon this matter.

10.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am very glad that we have been given this opportunity of considering this matter tonight and considering it over such a wide field. I should first say that we appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) has raised this matter. We know very well his interest in the whole question and we recognise the assistance he gave to the Department in discussions that we had on the introduction of this scheme. But I do feel that a great deal or the discussion tonight has been rather wide of the mark.
To start with, it must be remembered by hon. Members in all parts of the House that at the outset there was no suggestion that a full dental service could be provided in this country at the begin-

ning of this dental service scheme. It was clearly understood that the shortage of dentists was such that there could be no effective dental service for the whole country, and hon. Members were warned of that position at the time. In fact, as hon. Members have said tonight, it has only been possible to provide the service that has in fact been given because of the serious overworking of many dentists, and it is by no means certain that overworking is satisfactory for the patient or the dentist.
It is quite true that in the first case we based our regulations around the report of the Spens Committee which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton rightly said, laid down the assumption that there would be a net income of £1,778 a year. When it was found after this scheme had been working for some time that in fact the fees were turning out at a very much higher rate than was supposed, and in fact the incomes being earned were outstandingly higher than those figures, naturally my right hon. Friend had to consider what action should be taken. Discussions were held with the dentists, and suggestions were put before them which they, at the time, regarded as not being the best way of t dealing with the matter, and they suggested that there ought to be more time for discussions and for consideration of the position.

Mr. Baird: Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House that the Minister had discussions with the dentists before this regulation was made? If that is so, may I ask him what suggestions were put to the Minister for reducing the incomes? As far as my information goes, no discussions were held.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is perfectly true that the suggestions the Minister had in his mind at that time were not precisely the same as those finally decided upon. The regulations finally drafted were discussed with the dental organisations before these regulations were printed or published, and in fact because of those representations certain alterations were made in them.

Mr. Baird: No.

Mr. Blenkinsop: There are two main changes which were made in the regulations.

Mr. Baird: My information is that the Minister called the dentists together and gave them an ultimatum that there was going to be a cut placed upon them in this way. It was then announced in the Press, and he then had discussions with the dentists. There were minor amendments made, but there were no discussions at all before the regulations were made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My understanding was that there were discussions before these regulations were made on the date of operation of the regulations, firstly, and secondly, on the actual income to be permitted, which was above the sum contained in the proposals originally put forward. It was originally suggested that there should be a lower standard figure above which there should be this 50 per cent. cut. The figure originally proposed was somewhat lower than that put into the regulations now before the House.

Mr. David Renton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain what he means?

Mr. Blenkinsop: The actual figure of earnings which was discussed with the dentists, as I understand it, was a certain figure. After the dentists had made their representations, that figure was somewhat raised. We have figures now for the standard yearly income, above which there is to be a cut for any earnings in excess of £4,800 gross. The original suggestion was that a somewhat lower figure should be accepted.

Mr. Osborne: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us that figure?

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Member cares to put a Question down he can do so. I understand that the dentists themselves suggested that this figure should be altered, and that it was partly as a result of those representations that the figure of £4,800 was included in the regulations. I am not suggesting that the dentists accepted the regulations we have laid, but I am saying that the matter was raised with them. They claimed that a fuller investigation ought to be made before this was done. My right hon. Friend felt, I think rightly, that the position was so serious and urgent that we could not await any further investigation, which could not alter the facts already before us, and that inevitably this decision to make an immediate cut had

to be taken, although that did not in any way rule out the further discussions we desire with the dental profession on the whole question of the rates of their remuneration.
It is clear that even with these cuts, these arrangements we have made, the dentists are earning a great deal more than was envisaged in the original Spens Report. The Minister clearly laid down that we were accepting that Report as the basis of remuneration to dentists. There has been a very wide discussion tonight on the whole position of the dental service and the availability of it, and on the effect of this regulation on the availability of the service for National Health Service patients. It has been suggested that in many cases the result has been that, when a certain number of patients have been taken on by dentists in the service, extra patients are taken only as private patients. That may be, but faced with the fact that the earnings of dentists were proving to be so very much higher than had been suggested in the Spens Report, my right hon. Friend was bound to take certain emergency action.
I am not suggesting that this deals satisfactorily with the problem for the future, but I am suggesting that it was impossible for my right hon. Friend to allow this situation to continue, of this very large increase being earned. I am sure that I have the support of all sides of the House in saying that these increases were far too high and had to be cut in some way. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was proposing cuts down to the figures originally proposed in the Spens Report. I rather gathered from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton that he hedged a bit, and refused to give us his view on the matter.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I interrupt? If the Spens result could be produced it would be most satisfactory. I did not hedge. I merely told the hon. Member that it was physically impossible to produce the Spens result under the scheme the Minister had made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I cannot accept that at all.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Then why not do it?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am suggesting to the hon. Member that it was absolutely essential to accept the recommendations of the expert Committee which was set up. The Committee made certain recommendations and the Minister very clearly, in introducing those regulations to the House, insisted that those rates did not tie his hands in the future. One hon. Member referred to that fact. The Minister was therefore entirely free to make such changes as he felt necessary.
My right hon. Friend is anxious to discuss the whole question of the rates of pay of the dental profession with their representatives in our common anxiety to get a solution which will be satisfactory and fair to them in the light of the Spens Committee's Report and at the same time fair to the great body of our taxpayers. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are anxious to see the taxpayers protected too.
I want to say something further about the suggestion that the effect of these orders, for there are two, has been to push patients away from the National Health Service into private dental service. It is absolutely vital that we should insist that any service that requires longer working hours for dentists than the actual figure of 42 hours which is provided for is not one which can be regarded as being to the benefit of the Health Service patient or to the dentist. Forty-two hours is nine hours above the figure recommended in the Spens Committee's Report. That Committee was an expert body, and we feel that without a great deal of further experience, we do not want to commit our people to a service which in our view would be wholly unsatisfactory in that way. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that we are most anxious to discuss this whole field with the dentists and to arrive at a more final, satisfactory solution. We do not regard the orders that we have placed before the House as more than emergency requirements which I believe everyone in the House would agree were necessary by virtue of the very large sums which were being claimed by dentists.
My hon. Friend raised one or two detailed points which I should mention. The retrospective payments on the old dental letters are under discussion.

Mr. Baird: They have been under discussion for 12 months.

Mr. Blenkinsop: They are linked up with matters which are now under discussion. I quite agree that we want some settlement as soon as possible. My hon. Friend also raised the question of anaesthetists' fees. They are included in the 52 per cent. of practice expenses which are allowed. I do not think that anyone can suggest that we have any need to weep tears over the position of the dentists on the question of expenses today. Surely the position is quite on the other foot.
We ought to be anxious at the moment, as the Government are anxious, to secure a new agreement which is fair to all parties but which comes very much nearer to the original Spens Committee recommendations. I hope my bon. Friends will therefore withdraw the Motion on the assurances I have given of our anxiety to reach a full and satisfactory conclusion to this matter. I also think the House should agree that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves and particularly, perhaps, with relation to the Debate which will take place in a few days' time, it is vital that every possible method should be tried to cut down any unnecessary extravagance in these services.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I feel very sorry indeed for the Parliamentary Secretary. In the circumstances, he made his answer exceedingly well, but his position has not been a very easy one. He is new to the job. He had a very able predecessor and if he does as well as his predecessor did in the past, he will not be doing so badly. I warn him that he may very often have to "hold the buck" for his Minister, as he has had to do this evening. This is not the first time we have had to complain on these very important occasions of the Minister not being present. [Interruption.] I will give two previous instances.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As a matter of mere courtesy, surely the hon. Member realises that the Minister has been here taking the Debate the whole day. I think the hon. Member has been a bit discourteous.

Mr. Renton: As I have been challenged on that, may I say that when the order which is amended by this order came up, the Minister was not here and we complained. When my hon. Friend the


Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) initiated a Debate on the Adjournment about three weeks ago, the Minister was not here; very important matters of the Health Service were raised, and I understand that the Minister was given notice. It is apparently becoming a habit. I accept the explanation which has been given. No doubt in future, when the Minister has not been in the House all day, we shall see him when important points concerning his Department are being raised.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) described the Minister's regulation as a hasty one. I should be more inclined to describe it as a panacea and a somewhat vindictive one. He will not overcome the difficulties, which he has himself created, by this sudden chopping down, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton so rightly pointed out, in a manner which results in cutting rates after a certain amount has been earned. That applies most particularly when one bears in mind—as I do not think the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton did bear in mind—that there are also Income Tax and Surtax to reckon with, the result being that rates which might be earned after the minimum amounts earned by this order have been reached, might be negligible. I am sure it is not the Minister's desire, although it is the result of this order, that he should get highly skilled work done virtually for nothing, in circumstances in which he very much wants to get it done, in order to sustain his political reputation.
May I make special reference to the effect of this order in rural areas? Of course, a large part of present-day legislation is based on the assumption that those in Whitehall know better what is going on elsewhere than the people on the spot, but apparently those in Whitehall in this instance have overlooked the fact that a dentist's work in a rural area, among agricultural patients of all classes, is to a great extent seasonal. People working on farms have not time to go to the dentist during busy times, during harvest or haymaking or fruit picking, whatever the seasonal operation may be. Therefore, the dentist finds that in rural areas his work is crowded into those months of the year in which there is not quite so much work to be done on the

farms—in other words, into the winter months. A dentist in my constituency who has considered very carefully this order and its application to himself, as he is entitled to do, assures me that the effect of the order is going to be this: he is going to suffer very considerably because of the seasonal nature of the work coming in, while set off against that is the constant nature of his overhead charges, including his need to pay a mechanic all the year round. A dental mechanic is not usually employed on piece-work terms; he is employed on a salary, unless he is in a large urban centre, where he may be working as an independent man.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I want to ask the hon. Member whether he realises that the regulations, as drafted, provide for the carryover of earnings from month to month, so that, in effect, at the end of each month there is a new reckoning so as to ensure that if he has a lower rate of earnings in one month he can reclaim part of the excess in the previous month.

Mr. Renton: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. May I assure him that the constituent who referred the matter to me, and I myself, had carefully considered that point. It so happens that the first months which come into reckoning are, for my dentist, the busy months, and the later months are the slack months. That is true of nearly all dentists in the rural areas. It must be so. It seems to me that what has happened is—and I hope that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton will take good notice of this; I do not wish to be unkind to him, as I know his motives are sincere, but he has fluctuated from time to time—that the Government have undertaken to do a great deal in the provision of dental services without having the manpower to do it. If they wish to produce the goods, they must make it worth while for people to work overtime and to work hard, at some risk to their health. It seems to me that the Government have bitten off more than they can chew, and that this order does not in any way help the matter.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I have no desire to intervene in this Debate except to offer congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is new to


the post, upon the gallant effort he has made to defend a difficult position. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was not aware, as I am, that the Minister whose absence tonight we deplore, has suffered a domestic bereavement. If he had been aware of that, I am sure he would not have said what he did.

Mr. Renton: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for pointing that out. Had I known that earlier, I would not have made the remarks that I did.

Mr. Baird: May I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary? I know what a difficult and technical subject this is. The hon. Gentleman has done very well; he has not satisfied me, but his offer to the dentists of an opportunity to meet the Minister and to get together with a view to solving this problem in the way which I suggest is the only way, satisfies me to some extent at least; and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I apologise to hon. and right hon. Members, and also to the staff of the House, for venturing to start another Debate at this hour of the night when we have been casually discussing other members of the community having a remuneration of £400 a month for a 42 hours week. The subject I wish to raise is that of pensions appeal tribunals. I do so only in the hope that we may be able to improve the present machinery of these tribunals. They are judicial tribunals established under the Act of 1943 for the hearing of appeals by ex-Service men and former members of the Civil Defence services where the appellant is not prepared to accept the verdict of the Minister of Pensions on their particular cases. They are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's department; they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the whole of the instructions which go out to them originate from that department.
The whole of this House is aware, and, I think, must be ashamed, of the very shabby treatment which ex-Service men and others—especially those who were disabled—received after the 1914 war in the matter of pensions. It has been left to this Government to bring in legislation to redress many of the pensions grievances even of those from the 1914 war, 30 or more years afterwards, and to try to give justice in many such cases. I believe that all hon. Members of this House desired something better after the last war than the treatment which was accorded to disabled ex-Service men of the 1914 war, and I felt so strongly about this matter that I took the liberty of inserting in my election address a little paragraph which went something like this: "The Service men and women will believe me when I say that I will try this time to see that they have a fair deal" and, in redemption of that promise, I venture to raise this matter tonight.
I am as I say sorry to keep the House at so late an hour, but I have waited for eleven years to have an Adjournment Debate in this House and I hope I may, therefore, be forgiven for speaking so late. There are three points which I wish to raise briefly. First, I want to ask for a larger measure of decentralisation of the appeal tribunals. The regulations state that the tribunals shall sit at such times, and in such places, as the Lord Chancellor may, from time to time, determine. There has grown up a tendency to concentrate the hearings in London. Now, London is absolutely the worst place to which one can ask a disabled ex-Service man to come to have his case heard; there is the problem of negotiating Underground stairs, and so on, in order to get to the place of hearing, and there is the question of accommodation: these things make London worse than any other place, always remembering that the provincial ex-Service man is not so familiar with the capital as those of us who are called upon to spend much time here.
There is something to be said about this policy of decentralisation in that there is some time between the lodging of an appeal and the result of it if tribunals are to function as at present, with a legal member—who is the chairman—a medical member, and a lay member corresponding in rank and sex to


the appellant. If the present policy of continuing to hold separate tribunals persists, there will be a continuing delay; but I want particularly to ask the Attorney-General whether there is any need for separate tribunals for officers and other ranks. Why should not the same tribunal treat both, with the substitution of on officer for the lay member if it be an officer's case, and then have somebody else standing in if it is an other rank's appeal? I think in that way it would be possible to get cases dealt with quite expeditiously in our larger cities instead of drawing them to London.
Secondly, and of even greater importance, is the main point I wish to raise, when I ask for an assurance that the appellants who are called to the appeal tribunals shall be assured that their cases will be heard on the day on which they are called. May I recount something which I saw myself at an appeal tribunal recently, so that the House will be able to see what I mean. I saw before the appeal Tribunal in London recently the case of a man with a severe spinal injury. His case was down for hearing and he had been called to the tribunal for 11 o'clock on a certain morning. That man waited from 11 o'clock until 3.30 p.m.— a four and a half hours wait—after having come from Reading, accompanied by his wife because it was not safe for him to move on his own. At 3.30 p.m. he was told by the tribunal that his case could not be taken that day and that he must return to Reading and come up again the next day. I think that is positively disgraceful treatment of a disabled ex-Service man who is seeking to have his appeal heard.
I am prepared to admit that on occasions when a case may take a long time someone must be inconvenienced—either the disabled ex-Service man who been called upon or the members of the tribunal. I want to ask that it shall not be disabled ex-Service men who shall be inconvenienced, but that if necessary, the members of the tribunal shall sit till 5.30 or 6 p.m. to complete the cases that have been called for that day's hearing. There is absolutely no justification for sending a disabled ex-Service man back or suggesting that he should go back. It is interesting to note that in the case of this man who was sent back, or told to go

back, to Reading, or else to find accommodation in London overnight—and that is not easy—the tribunal rose that day at 4.30 in the afternoon. Perhaps the Members of this tribunal are well remunerated—

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross: indicated dissent.

Mr. Poole: The Attorney-General shakes his head, but ideas of remuneration are relative. For instance if one compares the remuneration of the Attorney-General with the remuneration of dentists working a 40-hour week, I should say that the Attorney-General was badly remunerated. These things are all relative, perhaps some of the staff of this House whom I am detaining tonight may think themselves badly remunerated in relation to me. I am told that the remuneration of the members of the tribunals is fairly adequate, though I have not been able to ascertain what it is vet —but it seems they do not even work a 42 hour week.
I want some assurance that if anyone has to be inconvenienced by a case running a long time, it will not be the disabled ex-Service man. I ask for a positive assurance on that account because there are and must be many days when cases either do not turn up—and only seven are called on an average day —or else the cases run very smoothly and the tribunal not infrequently has been able to complete its sittings at a very early hour in the afternoon. Good luck to them if they can do it, but I must ask, if things do not turn out so well, that they should be prepared to sit a little longer. I believe one of the arguments against sitting longer than 4.30 p.m. is that their decisions after a long day's sitting may be "woolly." I rather regard that as something of a condemnation of those who not infrequently try to deliberate and legislate here into the small hours of the morning. I really do not think their decisions need be any more "woolly" at 4.30 p.m. or 5 or 6 p.m. than at 10 a.m.
Thirdly, I come to the question of expenses. Today a man who comes before a tribunal has his expenses paid and a railway warrant to bring him to the place of the tribunal. If, for reasons of health, he ought to be accompanied by an attendant, he can bring that attendant


with him, and that attendant's expenses will be paid. If it is necessary to produce medical evidence, a doctor's expenses may be paid, and a fee of three guineas may be paid to the doctor. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this question of expenses. How can one expect a man to come from Newcastle or Reading to London for a case which may not be taken that particular day, and be satisfied with a remuneration of three guineas for the loss of a whole day in his practice? What will happen is that the doctor just will not come and the man will be deprived of what is, perhaps, necessary medical evidence to prove his case.
The importance of other witnesses also arises. A man may have an inadequate medical history, as I myself had when my case came before a tribunal recently, and in cases of that kind, special witnesses may be needed. There is no provision at all at the present time for the payment of expenses and allowances for these special witnesses, and I ask that where extraneous witnesses are certified by the chairman of the tribunal as being necessary the tribunal ought to be empowered to pay their expenses. It is no use saying that the onus is on the Ministry to disprove a man's case if one does not give a man the fullest opportunity to prove his case. The grant for which I am asking tonight would not cost very much—certainly not more than we ought to grant to these men—and I hope the suggestions I have put forward tonight may receive the very sympathetic consideration of the Law Officers and that we may have some assurance on the three points which I have raised.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: May I make one short point in support of my hon. Friend's appeal? Recently I have received complaints from two of my constituents who put down their applications for hearing before a pensions appeal tribunal and had to wait 16 months before their cases were heard. I am told that on the average, it is six months before the hearing of a case, and although it is true that in the end an applicant succeeds in having made good to him whatever he loses through the period of waiting, I do hope something can be done to expedite this matter and to see that the hearing takes place in a

very much more expeditious manner than at present.

11.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I hope that I shall be able to deal satisfactorily with the three points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole), and also the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). In view of the strong epithets used by my hon. Friend about certain aspects of the pensions appeals tribunals, I should like to say just one or two things of a general nature.
It is very easy to be critical, and no doubt there is no organisation, however perfect, which, when exposed to detailed scrutiny and examination, may not be found to be the subject of faults in one particular or another. In the present case I venture to think that the hon. Member for Lichfield has based a number of his criticisms on particular instances which have very little general existence, and I want at the outset of my remarks to try to put the matter in a more proper perspective.
There have been an enormous number of appeals dealt with in the last five years, and it is right to say firmly that the tribunals have operated not only with notable efficiency and justice to the individuals concerned, but with the very greatest consideration to the appellants. There are at present about 23 of these tribunals, some of them sitting in London, and some of them sitting regularly in one or other of 15 provincial centres. My hon. Friend has spoken about decentralisation, but I can assure him that, in fact, in all the important provincial towns in the country, 15 of them, these tribunals are sitting regularly and disposing of cases.
My hon. Friend referred to the unfortunate circumstances in one case with which he was familiar, when an appellant was unable to get his case disposed of on the day he was called. In 1948 no fewer than 34,225 appeals were in the lists for hearing before one or other of these tribunals. Fixing the time at which cases should be heard, fixing the places at which they should be dealt with conveniently to the appellant concerned, is not always a very easy matter. It is difficult sometimes to say how long a particular case is likely to take, difficult to be


sure that the appellant will turn up when his case is called, difficult to know whether he is likely to bring witnesses, often irrelevant ones whom he insists the tribunal should hear.
But in spite of all these difficulties, the tribunals succeeded in so arranging their business that out of these 34,225 cases in the whole year, only 53 had to be adjourned for want of time. I wish we could achieve that remarkable result in the ordinary courts of justice. I think the hon. Member will agree that the tribunals are to be very much congratulated in this matter. In order further to meet the convenience of the appellants in future the tribunals will sit late to dispose of the list in that very, very small minority of instances in which that necessity arises. In such cases the appellant will be given the chance either of having his case adjourned to some other convenient date or of carrying on later in the evening to finish the case that day.
May I make one further comment on the question of decentralisation? I said that sittings take place in 15 different centres. In some of them tribunals are sitting throughout the month. In Birmingham, for instance, during November and December—and they were typical months—there was one tribunal sitting throughout the period, and another sitting for two weeks in each of these months.

Mr. C. Poole: What type of cases were they considering?

The Attorney-General: In the main, they were dealing with appeals by other ranks, because these form the vast majority of appeals; but in both months officers' cases were dealt with—for two days in November, and one day in December—and apparently that was sufficient to clear the list. It was thought in one case that the convenience of the appellant would be better served—I mention this without mentioning names, but the hon. Member will have in mind the case to which I am referring—by having the case heard in London rather than in Birmingham, and out of consideration for him, mistakenly, the case was listed in

London. In future, to avoid any misunderstanding of that kind, arrangements will be made to notify officers, in case there may be any delay in hearing their cases in the provinces, that if they want to get a case on immediately it can be dealt with in London, but if they are prepared to wait perhaps a week or two longer it will be dealt with in the nearest provincial centre.
These being the facts in regard to the disposal of cases and the question of decentralisation, there does not appear to be any occasion for increasing the number of tribunals or altering their constitution. The presence of an officer on the tribunals dealing with officers' cases has been found most useful to ensure that the tribunals should be fully familiar with all the circumstances of an officer's employment. The expenses allowable to doctors are not noticeably dissimilar from those which may be allowed in the ordinary courts. I can reassure the hon. Member that the point will not escape further examination, and my noble Friend will look at it, in consultation with the Treasury, and also look most sympathetically at the suggestion that where the chairman of a tribunal certifies that some lay witness is essential, his expenses should be paid.
Looking at the matter broadly—and I come to the last point that was raised—I think it is right to say that after five years of nearly continuous operation, these tribunals, which are staffed by gentlemen not extravagantly remunerated, have performed a very difficult public service with notable success. On the question of delay, the position now is that almost all entitlement appeals have been finally disposed of. I think there are hardly any of any substance or merit which remain. There are assessment appeals, and every effort is being made to speed up the hearing of these. I hope that the House will feel that these tribunals have discharged a very difficult task in a way which greatly commands our confidence, and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to them for the great public service they have rendered.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.